Coates v. City of Cincinnati

Case Review of Coates v. City of Cincinnati

A case on the laws of Assembly, and the Rights of People

Case Name: Coates v.  City of Cincinnati

Court Title:

Supreme Court of the US

Appealed from the 
Supreme Court of Ohio

Decided on: June 1st, 1971

For full transcript please find  the link at the base of this post.

Introduction-

The Ohio Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of the following ordinance by the City of Cincinnati, OH. 

"It shall be unlawful for three or more persons to assemble, except at a public meeting of citizens, on any of the sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots or mouths of alleys, and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by, or occupants of adjacent buildings....

Section 901-L6, Code of Ordinances of the City of Cincinnati (1956).

The appellants were convicted of violating the ordinance. The position of the appellants was that the ordinance "on it's face" violated the 1st and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

This claim was first dejected by the Supreme Court of Ohio, the court wrote:

"The ordinance prohibits, inter alia, `conduct . . . annoying to persons passing by.' The word `annoying' is a widely used and well understood word; it is not necessary to guess its meaning. `Annoying' is the present participle of the transitive verb `annoy' which means to trouble, to vex, to impede, to incommode, to provoke, to harass or to irritate.

"We conclude, as did the Supreme Court of the United States in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 616, in which the issue of the vagueness of a statute was presented, that the ordinance `clearly and precisely delineates its reach in words of common understanding. It is a "precise and narrowly drawn regulatory statute [ordinance] evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be . . . proscribed." ' " 21 Ohio St. 2d, at 69, 255 N. E. 2d, at 249.

Appeal and Superior Court Decision-

The decision was then appealed the the US Supreme Court, who saw probable jurisdiction under, 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Mr. Justice Stewart introduced the opinion of the court. The US Supreme Court stated that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as it holds the right to assembly to an unattainable standard stating:

'In our opinion this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct.'

And continues to refer to  Connally v. General Construction Co. quoting "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning."

However, the court does go on to state that the ordinance does broadly prohibit actions that are within it's constitutional power.  And refers to the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision  stating:

'... The city is free to prevent people from blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, or engaging in countless other forms of antisocial conduct.'

and goes on to say that the ordinances of the city needed to be made with "reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited," and cannot constitutionally do so with an ordinance whose violation "may entirely depend upon whether or not a policeman is annoyed."

The case goes on in further detail stating as to why the ordinance was unconstitutional and refers to several more cases, and ends stating;

The ordinance before us makes a crime out of what under the Constitution cannot be a crime. It is aimed directly at activity protected by the Constitution. We need not lament that we do not have before us the details of the conduct found to be annoying. It is the ordinance on its face that sets the standard of conduct and warns against transgression. The details of the offense could no more serve to validate this ordinance than could the details of an offense charged under an ordinance suspending unconditionally the right of assembly and free speech. The judgement is reversed. 

Mr. Justice Black agreed and reaffirmed the judgement with his own twist, stating that the actions of the appellant may have been criminal, but the record failed to describe what actions they had made.  

Mr. Justice White in concert with The Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Blackmun wrote a dissenting opinion and affirmed the judgement of the Supreme Court of Ohio. They state that the ordinance was prohibiting crimes within the cities jurisdiction, but the language of the law itself was vague, but this does not mean that the appellant was not guilty of a crime. Once again non of the justices were supplied with the actions of the appellants and could, therefore not reach a conclusion as to if their individual actions were criminal, or if the city acted unconstitutionally. 

This is an edited brief on 

Coates v. Cincinnati 

for a full transcript,

 click the link. 

I reviewed this case in a course of research, for discovery of the defining bounds of an assembly and when an assembly becomes a 'protest', as well as the differences between the two, please stay tuned as I dive into this issue and bring forth information to assist in the proper and reasonable forms of assembly in which we are lawfully allotted to take, instead of protests which often end in the arrest of otherwise law abiding people engaged in an action which often has an unclear focus of a pursuable objective. 

Response to "10 Supreme Court Rulings—Before Hobby Lobby—That Turned Corporations Into People"

For a better informed point of view on this Response. 

Please read before continuing:

Corporations Are Citizens, but Neither are People

BEGIN:

In the eyes of US Law corporations and businesses for that matter are considered citizens.  This idea was given life in the early 1800's when it was decided that corporations were considered citizens of the state in which they reside.  I find it amusing that this fact seems to rile people up and get them so upset.  If we look at the wording of the cases in which corporations are considered citizens, we see that they are not granted the rights of the People, as only the People can have actual rights and not citizens.  It is important to note that even a 'person' is typically a legal term used to refer to a citizen. 

So while corporations are fighting for their rights as citizens, as the People have granted them permission to do, many 'persons' are getting upset about these things.  I must declare that instead of getting upset about what privileges companies are working towards having as citizens, it is more important for each of the People to stand up and recognize their own rights as People, and not lower themselves to citizen status.  Our rights as People are currently alive and active, but should we forget to give them breath and instead give our breath to the privileges of corporations, they will be lost in the pages of musty history books.

As amused as I am by the anger and frustration expressed at the decisions to call corporations citizens and to grant them 'rights', I am also saddened at knowing that many people do not recognize that citizens are recognized as corporations with privileges, and these 'citizens' (the ones that really are people) bicker amongst themselves regarding the supreme court decisions, they are trading in their rights as People, for privileges as citizens by lowering themselves to the level of a corporation, even though they feel that the corporation is being raised up to their level. 

Do some research into Supreme Court law and you will find that in nearly all circumstances the Right's of the People are held above all other law and statutes issued by and for the citizens.  Even many cases are held in favor of people that believe they are citizens when fundamental rights are at stake.  Throughout my site and the internet itself you will find oodles of law that has been passed from the Supreme Court for the protection of the people and people believing they are citizens.  

The Supreme Court and most systems of law are not out enemy, they are tools used for good and bad like everything else.  Don't be deceived by those who's hearts are filled with hate and minds full of ignorance. Educate yourself on the issues of law and the people's rights my site is an infinitesimally small example of what kind of information is available for the People to use. 

This article was written in response to the claims of the article linked below and the commentary of those who posted there. The article does have some very valuable information and indeed taught me some new things, however the title is misleading and so are some of the points made.  

http://www.motherjones.com/

Theory of Law I - Natural Law in Secular Court

Upholding Natural Law in a Secular Court

A look at Natural Law and how it apples in Secular Court 

Most of what I portray on this site is law theory, don't take anything I say as a fact, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. I am simply pointing out some commonly overlooked facts of law and government, but I may never be able to say how they will apply in your jurisprudence (theory or philosophy of law).  When I am applying my theory that is when it becomes law, until then it is nothing but an idea.  The only person that can give you legal advice is an attorney, simply because the definition of Legal advice is advice given by an attorney.  I focus on law and jurisprudence, I am only giving you an idea of what to look for and do not claim this to be the highest truth, you must find that on your own, no one not even a lawyer can show you that. 

The best way to avoid trouble with the law is to not break the law.  Natural and Universal law are self enforcing, if your break the law of the universe it may take some time but you will be punished eventually in some means or another, this is known as Karma or balance.  If you are of the natural law then written law may not come against you, to quote the Aramaic Translation of the Bible "But if you are led by The Spirit, you are not under The Written Law.". If they should come against you, you will acquire the information to overcome them. To be of the spirit one must always live by universal law, these laws in addition to not infringing on others rights,  would also include not eating flesh and not using or harming the earths oil (blood).  It takes years to transform from a life of bad deeds and lies into a righteous life.  Although it takes time as long as you take steps toward progress your actions are sure to be rewarded, and as such you will be protected.  But it is important to always remain humble to the natural law and this means to be humble to others even when they attempt to take your personal liberties.

All of my Law must first stem from natural law and grow into my own right, I am nothing without the authority of natural law.  In the secular court I must declare my status as a People (one who owns the government) and not a citizen (one subject to the government). As a People I am recognized as sovereign by the authorities of the supreme court, which should carry weight in a lesser court if proposed in the right manner.  In my upcoming article "Owning Your Court" I will be discussing one way to apply case law in an authoritative manner.  As a defendant of lets say a traffic violation, it typically does no good to quote a case or higher law,  the plaintiff is the one declaring the law and your have entered his court, he is not expected to accept your law.  You must enter the position of the sovereign plaintiff in your own supreme court to decree your own law.

“The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.”

     [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co]

A Brief w/ commentary: Jefferson's A Summary View of the Rights of British America

A Brief w/ commentary:

By: Douglas Dedrick 

on 

A Summary View of the Rights

of British America

Set Forth in some Resolutions 

Intended for the Inspection of the Present Delegates 

of the People of Virginia Now in Convention

By: Thomas Jefferson

In this document Jefferson is addressing the harsh trade sanction imposed on the colonies by the king.  Jefferson address's that it was his ancestors and those of the colonists, with no assistance of the king, that established and settled the colonies.  It was not until the colonies were well settled that Britain sent assistance, which was requested by the colonists to fight "enemies".  As part of the agreement for support from Britain, the colonists agreed to trade as it was beneficial to England. Jefferson is speaking of how harsh the regulation of trade from Britain has been.  Trade has been so restricted Jefferson is calling it a violation of the right of the people of British America.  

As Jefferson addresses, British parliament session after session has restricted the trade of the colonies, in an effort to make them more dependent on the British empire. Trade is so regulated by the British parliament, that colonists have almost no choice but to trade directly with the English.  This brings the value they receive for their goods down, and the cost for imported goods up. Jefferson although grateful for the help received from Britain, is trying to set some boundaries and is calling the British parliament and his majesty, out on violations to basic laws of human nature. He is not only addressing the violations of the current king, but also his predecessors, stating that act after act of parliament has further restricted trade.  One of the more extreme prohibitions on trade was  an act past that outlawed a settler from making a hat of an animal they capture, even if it were caught on their own land.  If the settlers produced more tobacco than Britain demanded they were to sell it to the British merchant for whatever price they would offer, the British merchant would then sell the tobacco in foreign lands and he would profit.  

We can see clearly in this document why the American colonists had cause to be upset with the British empire.  Not only has the parliament limited the colonies trade with other nations, but even the internal affairs of the colonies themselves are severely limited  as well. It is amazing to see such a strong abuse of power taking place in an area so simply as limitations to trade.  With acts entitled things such as “An act for the better securing the dependency of his majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain;”, it is all to clear the blatant abuse of power the king was trying to exercise.  Jefferson is under the impression that the king and parliament are on track to reduce the colonists to slaves of the British empire, after reading of the atrocities, I can say that those beliefs were defiantly not unfounded. 

We also find Jefferson's second hand account of the "Boston tea party", and we also find that the parliament in response to the "Tea Party" has since passed an act banning shipments in or out of the port of Boston. This document seems to be the outline of much of my old school history books.  In this short 23 page document we find mentions of the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, violations of rights and definitions of them, mentions of the constitutions of the states and of Great Britain, we also find the king using and abusing his executive powers and mentions of the two other branches of legislature. Considering the atrocities by "his majesty" and the parliament, one can see why the founders of the Constitution of the US were so firm on human rights and why they were so adamant above creating a system that would preserve the rights, not just for a few folks, but for all people.  

This document shows a very unique and strong perspective on the building tensions in the preRevolution era. What I also find interesting is an individual, Thomas Jefferson, is challenging the jurisdiction of the British parliament, stating that the acts are void and that the parliament has "has no right to exercise authority over us.". Jefferson also states that the king is exercising law that is not derived of human nature, and thus has no real substance.     I think that this is an important document of the United States history, and of the formation of US Law, in a very short document much of the US's foundation is discussed, and we get a first hand perspective on the events that occurred and how it may have felt to be there.