I’m working on a business law discussion question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

1st person

I believe that the U.S. Constitution would deny bail to a protest organizer if what they had protested against somehow incited danger to people and if released would carry through on the person/people with bodily harm. I do not believe that in the case with the “Freedom Convoy” they were not looked upon as being terrorists in disguise in any form and it would not have been construed in the same fashion here. I think that under the first amendment the right to free speech is an important factor to consider for protestors. In the given example in Canada it did not seem that Tamara Lich was not inciting violence nor was she rabble-rousing. I think it was fair to say that the time and place of the protests/rallies was not permitted and in that case there was a crime committed, but not a crime that should have a denied bail.

I believe that the U.S. The Constitution would not allow for the freezing of personal assets of protestors in this country. I state this claim by bringing forth the Fourth Amendment, which helps protect against unreasonable search and seizure. As money is the underpinning of modern society, removing this from a person’s control entirely would be the same as stripping them of being a citizen. They would be unable to pay for necessities, such as food and water and could unreasonably lose expensive and important assets for failure to pay. A person’s financial existence should not be something that should be able to be manipulated by the government so easily and for protests. In cases of much more extreme and dangerous circumstances it is less clear where the line for reasonable search and seizure comes in, but not likely for protesting, at least I hope. I think it is a terrifying reality of the emergency powers that our government can take in states of emergencies, but hope that when the day comes they can still act in good faith the democratic ideals they uphold.

2nd person

The U.S. Constitution would allow the bail of a protestor organizer because the first amendment guarantees the right to religion, assembly, and the right to petition. Although, depending on the circumstances, there could be a situation where bail would be denied. However, I think the crime would have to be very intense. Denying bail for a protestor would be unconstitutional in the United States unless the organization was dangerous or uncontrollable like looting.

I don’t believe that the U.S. Constitution would allow for the power of personal assets of protestors. I think freezing personal property because of a petition is unethical and corrupt. Technically, the government is allowed to seize private property if granted a warrant. Although, I don’t think they have the power to do this over an organized petition. The protestor will be safe unless there are property damage charges, assault, etc. Freezing personal assets in the United States would be deemed unconstitutional.