The Black and White of What Constitutionally Matters

 The Six Clauses of the first amendment, in one succinct sentence, fully detail the extent of our American freedoms. This legendary sentence would truly lead to detailing the way in which our country handles itself, the values which its citizens carry, and the intrinsic rights of man that are inherent to being American.

However, as we've seen for centuries and specifically in the past few months, the fashion and execution of these rights is something still hotly debated. Looking towards the Black Lives Matter protests of current day, theres a dichotomy: looking at the day-lit protests which give the likeness of the Dr.King protests from the 60s, turning into scenes replicable to the LA riots of the 90s. The sentiment has stayed the same through the decades, people of color and allies to the movement using both their freedoms of speech and assembly to outcry that the heightened killing of black people by the police and the unjust system of racism thinly veiled by our country must end. Once researched, theres no argument that this is a reason for revolting, centuries of aggression muffled by the sounds of small victories which distract from the larger issue at hand. 

But the question here isn't whether or not the turmoil is warranted, but rather if it is indeed constitutional. To answer that, we must diverge from just the first amendment to the 14th, detailing, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," (Cornell Law School).  This clearly details that these systems of oppression used and maintained by the state can no longer occur, right? This one sentence should undo the decades after it which allows for the school to prison pipeline, exacerbated arrests and sentencing of people of color, redlining districts populated by race majorities, shouldn't it? 

Probably not coming as quite the shock- no it doesn't. The Slaughter House Cases presented a precedent stuck with by the Supreme Court nullifying the privileges and immunity clause, the exact clause meant to protect the rights of any minority group lasted in its full fervor for less than 10 years,  a group of rich white men yet again taking away the rights inherent for anyone who isn't them.

So we look back at Black Lives Matter to answer the question: is it constitutional? In short: yes and no. The right to redress our grievances is the final line in the sentence which defines the way which we are allowed to use our voices as weapons in a fight than spans generations. However, when we're caught in an endless cycle of rules getting changed in a battle which only benefit one side, maybe the idea of whats constitutional falls short to the question "what is right?"