Constitution Day draws smaller than expected crowd

Friday’s gathering for what was being billed as a “Constitution Day Celebration” drew fewer people than expected to downtown Centreville.

Event organizers had projected about 600 people but an unofficial count over the course of the eight-hour rally showed fewer in the crowd.

Jackson-area native Ted Nugent and his wife, Shemane, were among the speakers, which was comprised of mostly politicians, who took to the stage and addressed the audience.

St. Joseph County Sheriff Mark Lillywhite said by and large, the event was orderly and did not live up to the threat of chaos that some community members said was possible.

Check Also

Contract extension for road commission manager

St. Joseph County Road Commission Manager John Lindsey received a positive review and contract extension …

4 comments

  1. Don’t kid yourself. This was not a “Constitution Day Celebration”. It was a right wing, partisan lie fest. The fact that Ted Nugent found it necessary to go down the racist BLM road should be answer enough. Again, shame on Centreville for allowing this to go on at all. Your children’s education took a back seat to this. You must all be very proud. /s

  2. If you want to know what Ted Nugent said, watch his speech online. Search “Ted Nugent in Centreville MI.” Friday was literally Constitution day, the celebration of which gives us the right to assemble and to free speech (1A and 2A)

  3. Just to remind everyone that free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you like. Lies passed off as “free speech” are still lies.

  4. The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

    “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

    Freedom of speech includes the right:

    Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
    Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
    To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
    To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
    To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
    To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

    Freedom of speech does not include the right:

    To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
    To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
    To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
    Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
    Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *