Legaliaison\Peace Park
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
e-mail prop1@uujobs.com
(202) 462-0757
May 15, 1993
PRINCIPLE: WHEN ONE IS ENSLAVED, THERE IS SLAVERY
.
On May 6, 1993 the Forest Service published a proposed rule (Federal
Register Vol. 58, No. 86), making at least two things clear. First,
the proposal would restrict the "First Amendment" (id. p. 26940),
effectively transforming free assembly on public land into a
privilege/crime. Second, the legal principles referred to by the
government as authority for the proposed regulation are found in Clark
v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). Id.
The Forest Service proposal is a serious matter. 36 CFR 261.1(b)
provides a penalty of six months in prison and a $500.00 fine.
Since June 3, 1981, the Peace Park tribe has maintained a vigil for
wisdom and honesty, seeking truth, justice, freedom, equality and
peace on earth across the street from the White House in Peace
(Lafayette) Park. In response to our activities the government has
passed four regulations to control our expression.
This experience has educated us in government regulation of individual
rights, abuse of police power, and the machinations of the judicial
system. It has disturbed us to watch the legal principles established
by the government against us, used to limit the freedom of others. We
see this happening with the Forest Service regulation.
When Thurgood Marshall -- who joined with Justice Brennan in a very
intelligent dissent from the Clark opinion -- retired from the Supreme
Court, he stated, "This court no longer rules by reason, but by
force." Ironically, Justice White, who alone voted for a fair hearing
in Thomas v. Reagan, also wrote the majority
opinion in Clark. While Justice White's dissent might indicate a
personal change of heart, the full court's decision indicates to us
that Justice Marshall was correct.
Marshall and Brennan are both gone. Current interpretations of the
principles stated in Clark provide the legal authority for a police
state. Our experience, and the opinion in Thomas, leads us to
believe that it is unreasonable to expect the judicial system to
reverse the government's authoritarian trend. If these statements
seem extreme, it is suggested that dialogue be focused on these
concerns. The LEGALIAISON COUNCIL in D.C. in the SECOND WEEK OF JULY
would be a good opportunity for such a dialogue.
If our assessment is accurate, there is no good reason to expect the
courts to favor the First Amendment against the Forest Service's
proposed regulation. Therefore, it is suggested that rather than
concentrate on courtroom strategies to oppose this police state
regulation, other, more direct, tactics should be given greater
consideration.
In service to the Spirit of understanding,
Thomas
FS Regs Page | PCU Administrative Record
Rainbow in Court | Government Views | Public Views
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue