Taking grievances to the street for 248 years
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is depicted in this photo. (iStock via Getty Images Plus photo)
Here it is, torn from the battered and abused pages of the Bill of Rights:
'Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'
No question about it. We Alaskans are enthusiastic fans of the First Amendment right 'peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' Just the other day, April 19, over 3,000 people seeking 'redress of grievances' demonstrated in downtown Anchorage carrying signs such as 'Hands off the Constitution' and 'Health Care is a Human Right.'
A couple months earlier, Feb. 17, Presidents Day, hundreds demonstrated all over Alaska seeking 'redress of grievances.' Anchorage, Juneau, Palmer, Fairbanks, and Seward had sign-wavers galore redressing grievances. 'Democracy is not a spectator sport,' 'Resist,' and 'No Kings' bobbed over the heads of spectators growing hoarse from chants and shouts while unabashedly assembling and making their grievances known. The democratic process is messy, dontcha know.
And talking about 'kings,' the right to assembly goes back that far. It has its roots in English history, evolving from the Magna Carta signed in 1215, to the English Bill of Rights, to the Founding Fathers and on to our Bill of Rights. We Alaskans have not been alone in the embrace of public demonstrations to pursue grievances. The Suffragettes, for example, who advocated the right of women to vote were not shy about public demonstrations.
As the historian Mike Wallace has written:
'The twenty-third of October, 1915, was a crisp fall day, splashed with sunshine, perfect for a parade. In midafternoon tens of thousands of women clad in white dresses and yellow sashes stepped out of Washington Square. They strode up Fifth Avenue arrayed in delegations of assorted age and station — letter carriers' wives from Queens, schoolgirls from Washington Irving High, ILGWU seamstresses, Henry Street settlement workers.'
Of course, later in the same century the Civil Rights Movement put even more feet on the pavement to air grievances about racism and inequality. On Aug. 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous 'I Have a Dream' speech as part of the March on Washington. The speech was delivered to an estimated 250,000 people who came to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate for civil rights.
So you get the idea. The principle of free speech, including the right to peaceful assembly, was so central to a successful democracy that it was the very first right in the Bill of Rights. We Americans have been using that right since the founding of this nation 248 years ago. But here in Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy would like to see an end to this First Amendment foolishness.
Early this year, the governor introduced House Bill 71/Senate Bill 74, 'An Act related to obstruction.' It appears to target large demonstrations and spontaneous demonstrations without a permit. In my view, the primary purpose of this bill is to strongly discourage Alaskans from exercising their right to peaceful assembly in the first place. Here are some of the 'highlights,' so to speak:
If the protest 'substantially interferes' with someone's access to a government building, or 'interferes' with an emergency responder, the offense would be a class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $50,000.
A person 'whose passage is obstructed' could sue a protester for $10,000 if their rights were infringed, $50,000 if their property was damaged, and $100,000 if they were personally injured — in addition to attorney's fees and costs.
Draconian. Might be worth considering if there were a substantial history of these crimes by demonstrators in Alaska. Let's take a look. The governor's transmittal letter makes no mention of a history of these crimes. The bill itself makes no mention of a history of such crimes. A report submitted by the attorney general a year ago for very similar proposed legislation, House Bill 386, came up with cases in New York and Washington, D.C., where demonstrators blocked traffic, but did not report a single such case in Alaska.
And to top it all off, an internal legal analysis conducted by the Legislative Affairs Agency for HB 386 found, among many other critical findings:
'The bill raises issues under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and art. I, secs. 5 and 6, of the Alaska Constitution. In particular, if challenged, there is a risk that the new crime of obstruction of free passage in public places could be found unconstitutional both facially or if applied to the protected speech of protests or demonstrations.'
Finally, this is just the tip of the iceberg of Gov. Dunleavy's attempts to subvert constitutional protections for Alaskans. See the ACLU analysis aptly titled, 'Dunleavy is the anti-First Amendment governor.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Can't Help It: I'm on Trump's Side in the Musk Rift
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. I suppose I need to make it clear up front that I'm not much of a fan of Donald Trump. I don't think I need to explain why either. There's a good chance you reflexively understand the particularities of my distaste: the naked corruption, the antipathy for governmental function, the consistency with which he pays lip service to the darkest and strangest contingencies in the right-wing underworld. Mostly, though, I've just never loved the way Trump talks to, and about, other people. There is just something insecure about his approach. His macho barbs are always expressed via iPhone, and all carry the unmistakable stench of a guy coming up with what he wanted to say in an argument hours later, while stewing in the shower. With all that said, these past few days have opened my eyes to some elements of Trump's appeal. It turns out I can actually like the president—so long as he's making fun of Elon Musk. The ongoing Trump–Musk breakup has brought to light a truth lingering deep in my subconscious. You know when you watch the Super Bowl as a neutral fan and you can feel your brain tugging your body toward one side or another? That mysterious biophysical phenomenon that makes you a temporary Eagles fan? That sinister whisper in your ear? It's happening right now. I want Trump to punk this dude. Shove him in a locker. Make him humble. Can we deport him? We should probably deport him. For the one and only time in my life, I have become MAGA—and it feels amazing. Here's a quick recap of the feud as it currently stands. Musk, after haphazardly dismantling countless organs of the federal government without even saving all that much money, exited his role in the White House to return to his business concerns. Reborn as a private citizen, Musk began criticizing the major Republican spending bill working its way through the bowels of Congress—specifically in regards to the trillions of dollars it will add to the national debt, obliterating what was DOGE's raison d'être. (One sample post: 'This spending bill contains the largest increase in the debt ceiling in US history! It is the Debt Slavery Bill.') When those complaints were ignored, Musk's attacks grew more personal and less centered on an ostensibly good-faith intraparty debate about monetary policy. Finally, in a fit of petulance on Thursday, Musk went below the belt: He claimed that the president wouldn't have won the election without his financial assistance and that absent his sallow presence on the campaign trail, Democrats would have held on to their congressional majority too. That was the kiss of death for Musk's D.C. welcome. I genuinely cannot think of anything that will more effectively inspire the ire of Trump than the insinuation that he needed someone else's help to succeed. So, yesterday, the president claimed that Musk had gone 'crazy' and, with his classic knack for messy gossip, asserted that the tech baron had already worn out his welcome in the Oval Office by the time he scurried back to his Tesla duties. (The president also not so subtly threatened to rescind Musk's government contracts, Harvard-style. Funny how DOGE never considered that idea?) Musk—as he often does—retorted by making a truly astonishing number of posts on X directed at the president, culminating with the charge that the reason his administration hasn't released the illusory 'Epstein files,' which almost certainly don't exist, is because Trump was an associate of the disgraced financier, a fact we've long known. Hilariously, that allegation evoked a rare nondenial from the Trump camp; when confronted with Musk's Epstein imputation, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt instead filibustered about how the president is committed to 'making America great again.' Curious! The breakup then simmered a bit, at least publicly. Politico reported that the two men might be brokering a ceasefire, and, my God, recovering a political alliance after playing the child molestation card is definitive proof that we all live in Bravoworld—and also in hell. But as of this morning, Trump hasn't let up the attack, again saying that the CEO has 'lost his mind' and that he isn't interested in talking to him. Unbelievable. I've never seen an inner-circle mainstay get relegated to Zelensky status faster. Five months ago, Musk was proclaiming that he was literally in love with Trump! And I think that's why I've found it so easy to root against him: Musk should have known better. Trump never changes. He is who he is, and that is terrible news for our country. Musk, however, thought he could be the one to change Trump. He assumed his skills were up to the task—but he merely possesses a craven instinct to bend to the contours of power, a third grade understanding of the legislative process, and, most crucially, a ridiculously amplified estimation of his own likability. And, reader, it is those kinds of men that I love watching eat shit. Imagine being Elon Musk and believing that Trump was keeping you around for your scintillating personality and bureaucratic acumen, and not because you are the richest man on the planet. Imagine being confronted with that uncanny laminated face in the mirror every day and still trusting that you have the verve and charisma to fire up a campaign rally. Imagine making the least funny tweets in the world, at all hours of the day, and thinking you could go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump, who—no matter what else I can say about him—is without a doubt one of the greatest posters in human history. (Elon's tweets go viral because he owns the platform they're on!) For months, Trump had to reassure this weird man, with shit vibes, that he was a crucial fixture of his government. Now he is gone, and I want the president to rain hellfire upon him. (The sooner he brings up the ketamine addiction, the better.) For the past eight years, I have watched Trump deploy his prickly, petty rage upon the most vulnerable members of society, harnessing the country's latent fury for the cruelest political objectives. So I must concede that it does feel great to draft in the glorious power of Trump's disrespect when it serves my own interests. I finally get it, and that should be a teaching moment for the Democrats. Can't someone in the party emerge as the locus for all of our haughty anger? Let me feel like this more often—I am begging you.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP Rep. Whines About Muslim Man Leading Prayer (He Wasn't Muslim)
GOP Representative Mary Miller—who once said that Adolf Hitler was 'right about one thing'—wrongly identified a Sikh man as Muslim in a racist X post regarding who was allowed to lead prayer in the House. 'It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should have never been allowed to happen,' she wrote on X over a picture of Giani Singh, a Sikh Granthi from southern New Jersey who was welcomed to give the prayer by Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy,' she concluded. The Illinois representative then edited her post, changing 'Muslim' to 'Sikh' before just deleting the post entirely. Miller is a right-wing religious zealot who can't even get her bigotry right. And the U.S. was not founded as a 'Christian nation' but as a country with the right to freedom of religion, which would make a Sikh man leading prayer very appropriate. Miller was quickly condemned for her comments. 'It's deeply troubling that someone with such contempt for religious freedom is allowed to serve in this body. This should have never been allowed to happen,' Democratic Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman replied. 'America was founded as [a] free nation, and I believe the conduct of its legislators should reflect that truth, not drift further from it.' 'I often say that I serve in Congress with some of the greatest minds of the 18th century. With Rep. Miller I may need to take it back a few more centuries,' Democratic Representative Jared Huffman stated.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth could be ‘on the hook' for hundreds of millions on Qatari jet, says Raskin
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that he could be 'on the hook' for hundreds of millions of dollars for having accepted a luxury jet from the Qatari government. In a letter sent Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) argued that Hegseth's formal acceptance of the Boeing 747 jetliner last month — a move made so the Air Force can upgrade its security measures so it may eventually be used as Air Force One — violates the Constitution Emoluments Clause. The rule bars federal officials from accepting financial benefits from foreign governments without congressional approval. 'I write now to urge and advise you to promptly mitigate these violations—and your own personal legal exposure—by either returning the plane to the Qatari government or promptly seeking Congress's consent to accept it,' Raskin wrote. The Pentagon announced on May 21 it officially accepted the 13-year-old luxury jet previously used by the Qatari royal family, a supposed 'free,' gift that could be used to supplement the aging Air Force One fleet, according to President Trump. The transfer has been criticized by U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who say it raises ethical and corruption questions in addition to costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit the plane into a secure and working Air Force One. Others have focused on the national security risks of such a gift, saying the aircraft would have to be swept for listening devices. Some have worried that in Trump's push to use the plane before he leaves office, the Air Force will rush security upgrades and cut corners on protection systems. A former professor of constitutional law and former ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Raskin has focused his criticisms on the ethical issues around accepting the Qatari plane, repeatedly arguing that it requires congressional approval. 'The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present 'of any kind whatever' from a foreign state without Congressional permission,' Raskin wrote on the social platform X last month after news of the gift broke. Congress has the authority to block federal officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments, as granted in the Constitution, but the government arm has not held any formal vote to accept the plane or not. Democrats largely have been unsuccessful in stopping Trump from accepting the Qatari jet. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last month attempted to pass a bill that would bar the use of a foreign jet as Air Force One, but that effort failed. Raskin, along with other Democrat lawmakers, have introduced resolutions to condemn the gift, but Republicans have blocked them from being considered on the floor. Making matters more complicated, Democrats, given their status as the minority party, can't convene any oversight hearings that would force government officials to testify on the issue, and their colleagues across the aisle have not called any such hearings themselves. In his letter, Raskin says Hegseth is in violation of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which could prompt the Attorney General to bring civil action and penalties against him. Under that law, government officials can accept certain gifts up to $480 in value, and they cannot 'request or otherwise encourage the tender of a gift or decoration' from another country. In violating the act, Hegseth can face a penalty 'not to exceed the retail value of the gift improperly solicited or received plus $5,000.' 'In other words, you may be on the hook for $400 million (plus $5,000) even for a jumbo jet that you accepted on behalf of the President but do not get to personally enjoy,' Raskin writes, referring to the cost of a new Boeing 747-8 jet. 'If you truly believe that there is nothing untoward about the President asking for and receiving a $400 million 'flying palace' from a foreign power, then you should let Congress and the President's Republican colleagues vote to approve the transaction,' he adds. 'If you're unwilling to do that, you must return the plane to Qatar.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.