The White House Peace Vigil, widely considered the longest continuous act of political protest in U.S. history, was dismantled by federal law enforcement Thursday night in what activists described as the most direct attack on the protest in its 44-year history.
What was left after demonstrators said National Park Service workers and U.S. Park Police officers closed Lafayette Square and hauled off protest banners, flags and other supplies was the vigil at its most bare: A small handful of protesters lined up on the red brick sidewalk to the north of the White House, holding whatever signs they managed to salvage.
The dismantling of the peace vigil on Thursday came nearly two weeks after President Donald Trump ordered: “Take it down. Take it down today. Right now.” The vigil had been under intense scrutiny ever since Trump’s demand for its removal. In two previous encounters with law enforcement, activists said, the vigil had lost several supplies, including a blue tarp and historic “peace rocks” painted by vigil keepers of years past.
The president’s demand that the vigil be removed on Sept. 5 came after Brian Glenn, a correspondent for the conservative network Real America’s Voice, told Trump during a press gathering that there was “a blue tent” in front of the White House that was “an eyesore.”
Vigil holders said that they were not given any warning late Thursday before federal officers closed Lafayette Square and began to dismantle their protest.
As Park Service officials began to move people out of the square just after sunset, Nadine Seiler said, an officer told her to take what she could carry – or else the protest materials would be declared abandoned property and promptly removed. As she scrambled to fill her arms with what she could lug out of the park, she said, an officer handed her a stack of papers. On it was a letter dated Sept. 12 and signed by National Park Service Superintendent John Stanwich.
The letter, which vigil keepers shared with the Post, states: “You are receiving this letter because you are, or reasonably appear to be, a participant in an ongoing unpermitted demonstration in Lafayette Park.”
I’m with you, but realize that if that’s true it applies to the second amendment as well as the first. Now, I think that’s fine but some people here might not.
Hard disagree, the difference between “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” and “well regulated militia” is night and day. If they wanted to regulate this conduct they have a lot of hurdles to go through. For example if they wanted to ban the display of flags, you would need to either show it doesn’t impact speech (it does) or get over the strict scrutiny standard which is famously difficult to overcome. Also it needs to be written by congress or a more local form of government, not at the wims of a president.
There’s an argument that the First and Second Amendments should be treated differently because of how they’re worded. The First flatly says “Congress shall make no law…,” which makes permits seem like an infringement. The Second, though, begins with “A well regulated Militia…,” and if we take “well regulated” seriously, it can be seen to imply regulation is part of the right itself rather than contrary to it. You could even push it to a more radical reading: that being free from excessive gun violence is itself an implied right, since “well regulated” might be taken to point in that direction.
Not necessarily saying I agree with that reading (honestly I don’t think I have the legal background to have a real opinion except oughts and shoulds) but it’s an argument I’ve seen made and it seems internally consistent.