REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

U.S. congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law.

POSTED BY: OLDENGLANDDRY
UPDATED: Thursday, March 8, 2012 06:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2689
PAGE 1 of 2

Monday, March 5, 2012 9:27 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 10:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


That's INSANE!!! How did they get that passed without anyone knowing about it???

Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"?!?

And before you start screaming about "dems", Raptor, please note it was passed almost unanimously in both houses--in other words, all the REPUBLICANS voted for it, too. I still want to know how they got away with it...and how we missed it!

Basically,



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 11:33 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Remember that old guy that talked about fooling some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time? Well.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 11:37 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


FUCK

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 12:13 PM

OONJERAH



Are we about to be "pacified"?


Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 12:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Classic problem crisis model. Have a sinister agenda, create a problem or something the public sees or may be convinced to see as a problem, then implement the agenda as a "solution."

This is how you know ALL OF THOSE BASTARDS in power are on the strings, and none of them can be trusted. This is why I was concerned from the beginning that OWS might be a set up. But no one wanted to hear. No one looks to the long term consequences. We play into their hands with conventional methods. We are predictable.

Here you go.

Quote:

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

`(c) In this section--

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.



Quote:

In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 12:44 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


The implications are significant on all levels. The Occupy London protest otside St. Pauls Cathedral was evicted last week only after a long legal process to get the eviction order. You, however, are now breaking the law pretty much as soon as you turn up to protest.
Capitalism knows how much of a crisis it's in and is preparing itself for the upheavals among the majority sections of society.
Your going to need to build more prisons.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 1:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
The implications are significant on all levels. The Occupy London protest otside St. Pauls Cathedral was evicted last week only after a long legal process to get the eviction order. You, however, are now breaking the law pretty much as soon as you turn up to protest.
Capitalism knows how much of a crisis it's in and is preparing itself for the upheavals among the majority sections of society.
Your going to need to build more prisons.




No, we need to build just a few guillotines.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 2:13 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


You will ( or should but probably won't) notice that the site that publicized this is a Socialist Party website.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 3:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I did notice.


I guess it irked tptb that the only thing they could get Occupiers on was illegal camping.

God forbid they should not be charged at a level appropriate to their heinous acts.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 4:23 PM

OONJERAH



Adios To More Freedoms => http://whtc.com/blogs/post/rkingman/2012/mar/05/adios-more-freedoms/

Moriches Daily - Authoritarian Anti-Protest Law => http://morichesdaily.com/2012/03/anti-protest-law/

OB Rag - New Anti-Protest Bill Flies Through Congress => http://obrag.org/?p=55812&cpage=1

ACLU Sacramento - Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal => http://www.aclusac.org/blog

Reason, Lucy Steigerwald => http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change
-any


    Peaceful protest was a long-standing tradition -- effective, too.
There are quite a few articles about it by now.
    I can kinda see why congressmen might soon want more & more protection from their constituents.


         

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 5:50 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification? Who sponsored this thing? Did he post such a memo? If so, how could he ignore the obvious First Amendment conflict?

E T A : Rep Tom Rooney, (R- Florida) in the House
Sen Patrick Leahy, ( D- Vermont), in the Senate


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 6:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
No, we need to build just a few guillotines.


Ayep.

And Byte of course has the obvious point about conventional methods I was trying to ram home before it come to this....

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 6:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification?




Did they EVER cite the constitutional basis for a single thing they've done since 2010? They talk a big game, but then they toss the rules aside whenever they feel like it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 7:01 PM

BYTEMITE


I did notice the website, which is why I looked it up on official channels. What I posted is what was passed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 5, 2012 8:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


This goes wayyyyy beyond camping in parks. What the rut? Is it passed or does it have another go round before its official.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 3:09 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


It's passed both houses of Congress, but has not yet been signed into law by the President.


But I don't doubt for a minute that it will be - after all, it passed with an easily veto-proof majority.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 3:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Some are more equal than others ...?

No sir, I don't like it.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification?



[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [ www.gpo.gov]

By Mr. ROONEY:
H.R. 347.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Article I, Section 8: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


For comparison, here's the current 18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds.

Quote:

(a)It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1)willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;

(2)willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

(3)willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(4)willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or

(5)willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).

(b)Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(1)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
(A)the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

(B)the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

(2)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c)Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.

(d)None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

(e)As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

Anyone see any differences?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:28 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Does the House still have that rule, passed by the R's & Tea Partiers, about attaching a memo to a bill explaining its Constitutional justification?



[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [ www.gpo.gov]

By Mr. ROONEY:
H.R. 347.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Article I, Section 8: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.




"Keep the Shiny side up"


Thank you, sir.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Ah. Here's the difference.

Quote:

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;


So this legislation adds the White House and the Vice President's official residence to the list of `restricted buildings or grounds'.

That's pretty much it, that I can see.

Any other changes, folks?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Anyone see any differences?

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

I think I spotted two.

"of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;"

"(d)None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section."

These limitations (above) exist in the current law. I cannot see that they exist in the new law.

Note:

"`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;"

This feature (above) seems to greatly expand the affected venues. So, essentially it seems (to my uninformed self) that the new law expands the rule to any area where something of national significance is occurring. (Not just where the secret service is protecting someone.) Also, the new law is no longer subject to other laws. It implicitly overrides them.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:52 AM

CAVETROLL


In the early part of the 20th century congress amended the Constitution to remove our freedom to drink alcohol. It was a crashing failure and they rescinded the amendment a few years later. Now, they've figured out that they don't need to go to the trouble to amend the Constitution. They can just publish new laws and take our freedoms.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 4:55 AM

BYTEMITE


When I looked up Geezer's USC Title 18, this is what I found.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/pdf/USCODE-2010-title
18-partI-chap84-sec1752.pdf


It appears to be in relation to restricted ground on the basis of secret service activity. Like when the Secret Service blocks off an entire neighborhood around Columbia university for Obama's visit and won't allow any of the residences to leave their buildings.

The proposed bill simplified the language. Supposedly.

While the language is very similar, and the bill does say it's an amendment, I can't find where in the bill fits in to the above. As an amendment it should have a number like 18 USC 1752 SS 602 (a) (1) (ii).

However, I'll tentatively rescind my accusation about OWS playing into their hands, though I'm still waiting for the ball to drop on that one.

I also still think all those people in power are a bunch of fascist cowards. I don't apologize for that. I don't apologize for what's true.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

The proposed bill simplified the language.


Hello,

If by 'simplified' you mean, 'expanded the powers of the bill' then I agree.

No one ever re-writes bills just to make them easier to read, Byte.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I think I spotted two.

"of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;"



Appears to be the same as (a)(1) of the current law.

Quote:

"(d)None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section."



I read this as stating that prosecution under this law would not preclude prosecution under other Federal or local laws.

Quote:

"(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;"

This feature (above) seems to greatly expand the affected venues.



Looks to be the same as (a)(2) in the current law.

Quote:

So, essentially it seems (to my uninformed self) that the new law expands the rule to any area where something of national significance is occurring. (Not just where the secret service is protecting someone.)

But the lines you quoted are exactly the same as in the current law.

Quote:

Also, the new law is no longer subject to other laws. It implicitly overrides them.



I'm not sure that there's any case in which Federal law is subject to state or local law. Seems to me that the "None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section." clause in the existing law means that State or local jurisdictions could also prosecute for tresspass. Since there is no prohibition of this in HR 347, I assume they still can.

I'm still thinking that the specific addition of the White House and VP's residence to the list of "restricted buildings or grounds", and some re-ordering of paragraphs, is about it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:35 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Geezer,

Quite right. I missed a(2). Adding the White House seems rather superfluous since persons under secret service protection are found there normally anyway.

Which leaves

"(d)None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section."

As the only salient change.

--Anthony





_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:30 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


I'm still thinking that the specific addition of the White House and VP's residence to the list of "restricted buildings or grounds", and some re-ordering of paragraphs, is about it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Oonjerah's link to this article - it has the best info on what's different, though even with all the legal language there looks like plenty of room for interpretation.

Reason, Lucy Steigerwald => http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change
-any


Highlights:

"Mahassey [the communications director for the bill's sponsor] said that the Secret Service requested the changes to this law because "right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

But there's reason to worry says Will Adams, the deputy chief of staff for Congressman Amash. Yes, the law updates as Mahssey said. It brings the DC trespassing violations under the federal umbrella and "Amash has no issue with that." But also does imply something else which inspired Amash to vote "nay."

Adams, who is a lawyer by trade, like his boss, explained the changes in updates from the previous statute in layman's terms. It all comes down the words "willfully" and "knowingly". As Amash wrote on his facebook (and Doherty noted):

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech."

- end article

So a rush to judgement again? Maybe, still feels bad, like going in the wrong direction and creating even more distance between Gov and People.



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Some are more equal than others ...?

No sir, I don't like it.


Okay, I generally refrain, but imma be a jerk and call bullshit.

Friday, January 27, 2012 - 21:56
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh please. Stop your whining.


Some are simply MORE equal than others.


It's a scientific fact.


Once again your appalling hypocrisy reaches the level of parody.


On the rest, Anthony has it dead bang square, this is a matter of interpretation and application, an unconsitutional end run and before any RATIONAL court (which leaves the supremes right out) would fail utterly in that it violates the right to free assembly as well as potentially infringing on other specifically ennumerated rights under the First Amendment.
Quote:

ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, as I have pointed out TIME AND TIME AGAIN, when "The Rules" become inconvenient for the powers that be, they're ignored.

And how, exactly, do YOU plan to enforce them ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech."




But if you think this is true, then worrying about changes to the law is moot, since you don't trust the government to obey the current law anyway. Of course, some folks read "death panels" into health care legislation as well. I suppose it depends somewhat on who/what your particular boogeymen are.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:33 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;"



Yeah, that provision seems to be there to quell any discontent over the law - but I think we know how that plays out. All they have to do to shut down a protest now is claim there is someone under Secret Service protection nearby - and that's it.

Ive got my pitch-fork. Who has the torches?

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech."




But if you think this is true, then worrying about changes to the law is moot, since you don't trust the government to obey the current law anyway. Of course, some folks read "death panels" into health care legislation as well. I suppose it depends somewhat on who/what your particular boogeymen are.



I believe the thinking is it's easier to prevent a bad law from getting worse than to unmake it altogether.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 10:39 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
You will ( or should but probably won't) notice that the site that publicized this is a Socialist Party website.




Dont worry, you wont burst into flame after reading it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 11:26 AM

OONJERAH



Lawfare, Wells C. Bennett explains H.R. 347
=> http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/03/on-the-federal-restricted-buildings
-and-grounds-improvement-act-of-2011
/

The article is to the point and simple enough for me to understand. Very short quote: "H.R. 347’s far more
blogo-controversial innovation is this: the bill also would make it easier for a person to violate § 1752."

          "Willfully" = no longer a factor




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Darn. Lost my post. Tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
....other specifically ennumerated rights under the First Amendment.

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



I don't know, Frem. Perhaps we should examine this so-called "First Amendment" more carefully before putting any trust in it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

So this is pretty obvious. In limiting only Congress, this leaves the way open for the President to create, when the time is right, a state religion by Executive Order. Then, since "Congress shall make no law...", such Orders can't be reversed by the legislature.

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Ha. Tried sacrificing a virgin lately?

"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Now why would they use "abridging" instead of something more direct like "interfering with"? Seems clear that when they choose, they can claim the "abridging" they mean is "to shorten by using fewer words but keeping the main contents" (per Websters New World Dictionary). So they can't shorten the speech they permit, but have no check on prohibiting it entirely.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

And the President/High Priest gets to decide what's "peaceably"?

Or, consider that the 5 million "person" military of the People's Republic of China is "People", so the Holy President could invite them over to "peaceably" Occupy American cities and military bases in preparation for the Communist/Church take-over.

"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Right. If the God-President doesn't decide that they're not assembling "peaceably" enough, and uses his Commie chums to ship them off to the Church/State-run re-education camps. And nowhere does it say that the new theocratic "Government" has to respond, or even listen.


Hey. This is fun.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 5:03 AM

BYTEMITE


I consider some of that inaccurate.

Quote:

Ha. Tried sacrificing a virgin lately?


Tried the death penalty lately? Christian Law isn't the only law in the nation... Though it sometimes seems like it's heading that way.

Anyway, if you had a jury by peers that recommended her sacrifice, or if you introduced a proposition in the election cycle and enough people voted for it, or if you lived in the south about 50 years ago and she was black, you very well could sacrifice your virgin.

The state frowns on non-directed singular person to person killing for religious reasons, but it has no problem with it if there's a popular mandate - As another example, war. Hafta love democracy.

You'd also kinda have to get into what was the intention of the founding fathers, and how they might define religion. They pretty much drew on Adam Smith's enlightenment era writings about religion and government. And Adam Smith was a deist, like many of the founding fathers (many of whom were also stonemasons, which only increases this), with a belief in *A* God but no particular preference for any specific religion. They believed in liberty, fraternity, and enlightenment, and killing kind of messes up the fraternity part of that.

Lastly you have to get into questions about consent. Anyone who would consent to have themselves killed for religious reasons (or in one instance I can remember, EATEN) the state considers too crazy to have actually been able to give their consent in the first place. If the leader of a cult didn't partake in the arsenic koolaide, he'd be convicted of murder because his cult members were too brainwashed and crazy to consent to being killed.

So, more specifically, that one was a crime before the constitution was written, did not necessarily derive from any one religion (though may have been influenced by culture), and the older law against murder takes precedence.

Quote:

So they can't shorten the speech they permit, but have no check on prohibiting it entirely.


Abridge can also mean "curtail, deprive, or cut off." Though I guess this is close.

Quote:

Or, consider that the 5 million "person" military of the People's Republic of China is "People", so the Holy President could invite them over to "peaceably" Occupy American cities and military bases in preparation for the Communist/Church take-over.


Uh, no. "People" in this case is legally defined in the Preamble of the document. "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

Quote:

If the God-President doesn't decide that they're not assembling "peaceably" enough, and uses his Commie chums to ship them off to the Church/State-run re-education camps. And nowhere does it say that the new theocratic "Government" has to respond, or even listen.


Technically they're not supposed to do this ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts were mostly repealed. Unfortunately we have done this, to Japanese Americans taken to internment camps in WWII. It was wrongful, and the government since has both apologized and given reparations. Grievances were redressed.

The specific legal methods of discourse with the government varies depending on circumstances and the region. The most common forms of this are a civil suit against the state or Federal government, or a petition to the state legislature to enact a law, which will then be voted on as a proposition in the next general election.

However, you have a point about "PEACEABLY," and that is the specific angle of attack that has been used recently to subvert this civil right. The government has started to use a claim that certain protests that are peaceful by most other definitions of the term put at risk public health and safety or undermine national security. I wouldn't be surprised if soon protesting at all was likened to a form of terrorism. How convenient, during certain administrations, that the American public was encouraged to believe that being against the government or war meant you were a friend to terrorists, and therefore a terrorist yourself. It certainly paved the way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 5:45 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Wow what a bunch or overblown rhetoric there is here...and it's not even from Rappy.

To think that the government is going to use this law to shut down protest such as the occupy movement is ludicrous. There are already laws on the books that allow them to do such, and rightfully so. The constitution gives people the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. It does not give the right to interfere with others or the operation of government. There is a reason such actions are called civil disobedience.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 6:10 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Geezer quotes from the EXISTING law:
Quote:



(2)willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;



Frem quotes The Bill of Rights:

Quote:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Right there is the conflict.

Hypothetical: A President gets the Secret Service to declare a national party political convention a "special event of national signifigance", which it , of course, is.
Protesters show up, to peacefully assemble, and exercise their right of free speech, requesting redress of grievance from some policy advocated by that party.
The protesters all get arrested, or marched off to some approved protest area blocks or miles away, where the media won't see them.

'course that's in the EXISTING law, which sounds pretty unconstitutional on its face. And it's happened at the last couple of party conventions. Maybe someone should sue, believing that the strict originalists on the current Supreme Court will overturn the whole mess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 6:33 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The constitution gives people the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. It does not give the right to interfere with others or the operation of government. There is a reason such actions are called civil disobedience.


The laws about squatting on public property that are currently being used to evict protestors came after the constitution. Those laws might well have been questionable in the first place due to the impact they might have on freedom to assembly. ("Government shall make no law")

From our perspective, it looks like it is becoming more difficult to legally express first amendment rights... And that the excuses being used to evict protestors are nonsense justification and an abuse of government power, that don't jive with the spirit of the body of law, which has been obfuscated by authoritarian asshat-ery.

The government's stance in this case is the equivalent of a man beating his wife and asking her why she makes him hit her. The man's arbitrary rules led to the beating, not anything objectionable that the woman did.

Civil disobedience is an action which breaks a civil law, in order to make the point that perhaps that law should not exist in the first place. As such, I do not separately categorize civil disobedience from first amendment rights. I concede my interpretation might be in the minority, but I see reason to think that my interpretation might be more in line with the spirit of the law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:29 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The laws about squatting on public property that are currently being used to evict protestors came after the constitution. Those laws might well have been questionable in the first place due to the impact they might have on freedom to assembly. ("Government shall make no law")



Yes they did come after but have been held up against the constitution. There is a difference between the freedom of assembly and squatting on a piece of property.

Quote:

From our perspective, it looks like it is becoming more difficult to legally express first amendment rights... And that the excuses being used to evict protestors are nonsense justification and an abuse of government power, that don't jive with the spirit of the body of law, which has been obfuscated by authoritarian asshat-ery.


You don't need to occupy a place to get your message out. The spirit of the first amendment was to make sure people could not be arrested for expressing their ideals. Setting up a tent city is far beyond that spirit.

Quote:

The government's stance in this case is the equivalent of a man beating his wife and asking her why she makes him hit her. The man's arbitrary rules led to the beating, not anything objectionable that the woman did.


I bit off the deep end with this one. The rules are not arbitrary, they are set forth for reasons. In this case it is to unsure that the Secrete Service can do it's job and protect the people it is assigned to protect, and to ensure that groups of people can't hinder government from doing it's job.

Quote:

Civil disobedience is an action which breaks a civil law, in order to make the point that perhaps that law should not exist in the first place. As such, I do not separately categorize civil disobedience from first amendment rights. I concede my interpretation might be in the minority, but I see reason to think that my interpretation might be more in line with the spirit of the law.


You’re simply wrong. The first amendment, nor the spirit of it, is justification to break the law.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:34 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
'course that's in the EXISTING law, which sounds pretty unconstitutional on its face. And it's happened at the last couple of party conventions. Maybe someone should sue, believing that the strict originalists on the current Supreme Court will overturn the whole mess.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_v._New_Hampshire

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:56 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Setting up a tent city is far beyond that spirit.


Not really. Unless you insist that everyone has a time-limit on how long they can express their ideals, but that would be a "make no law" issue.

I use this in answer your citation, and also point out that a supreme court decision, like Cox v. New Hampshire, can be overturned. It is not the end of say-so in what is and isn't constitutional, and they've been wrong before.

Quote:

The rules are not arbitrary, they are set forth for reasons.


Arbitrary: requiring instruction, direction, or decision from an arbiter.

Arbiter: judge.

Quote:

In this case it is to ("ensure" -ed) that the Secrete Service can do it's job and protect the people it is assigned to protect, and to ensure that groups of people can't hinder government from doing it's job.


True... Though I might question in counterpoint whether this interferes with the job of the public to hold their representatives accountable.

Quote:

The first amendment, nor the spirit of it, is ("not" -ed) justification to break the law.


Of course it's JUSTIFICATION, some people will break laws simply because they're THERE. Whether it's morally and ethically acceptable and whether or not it causes harm or sufficient damage for the government to intervene is the question you're asking.

Me, I'm simply going to say you're lawful and I'm chaotic, and neither of us will reach agreement here. So let's do us both a favour and avoid a big drawn out argument.

But, as a side note, it has already been determined that this law has not much to do with the public squatting and camp outs. In this, you are correct.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 8:19 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Not really. Unless you insist that everyone has a time-limit on how long they can express their ideals, but I don't think that has any precedence.



You don't need to tent city to express your ideals. Not to mention that such limits on place and time have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Quote:

True... Though I might question in counterpoint whether this interferes with the job of the public to hold their representatives accountable.


It might, for a time.

Quote:

I also point out that a Supreme Court decision, like Cox v. New Hampshire, can be overturned. It is not the end of say-so in what is and isn't constitutional, and they've been wrong before.


The Supreme Court is the end say so if a law is constitutional or not. On that matter their is not higher authority. It is true they can change their interpretations but until they do, or the constitution is changed they are correct.

Quote:

Of course it's JUSTIFICATION, some people will break laws simply because they're THERE. Whether it's morally and ethically acceptable and whether or not it causes harm or sufficient damage for the government to intervene is the question you're asking.

Me, I'm simply going to say you're lawful and I'm chaotic, and neither of us will reach agreement here. So let's do us both a favor and avoid a big drawn out argument.



Seeing a law as unjust can be justification to break said law, but not the first amendment.

If you not wish to discuss any further that is fine.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 8:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The Supreme Court is the end say so if a law is constitutional or not. On that matter their is not higher authority. It is true they can change their interpretations but until they do, or the constitution is changed they are correct.


Fair enough, though we can also hold an opinion differing from theirs. Otherwise there would not be cases to overturn previous decisions.

Quote:

If you not wish to discuss any further that is fine.


Kay.

I will say that my first reaction was possibly a bit beyond the pail, though I stick to my second one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 9:17 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Fair enough, though we can also hold an opinion differing from theirs. Otherwise there would not be cases to overturn previous decisions.



We can hold different opinions. We just have to understand that your opinions to not mean anything in a legal sense. That does not mean we can't work to change those decisions by admendment or different legal challenges.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 11:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I consider some of that inaccurate.



Well, yeah. It's all inaccurate.

I see that once again I have forgotten that the Liberals around here don't get sarcasm, and so forgot to include the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] commands to make it apparent.



Just so we're clear, I was doing a reducto ad absurdum version of the "Changing from 'willfully and knowingly' to just 'knowingly' is a plot to throw folks in jail" comments posted here - showing that you can find stuff wrong with just about any law, if you go far enough out in left (or right) field.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 11:58 AM

BYTEMITE


I'm not liberal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Ha. Tried sacrificing a virgin lately?


Well, THAT might depend on your specific definition of "sacrifice"....
But, erm, lets not go there,k?
*laughs*

I take your point - HOWEVER you forget that I am also something of a scholar of the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, in which the founders of the Constitution and those who disagreed with them hashed out in excruciating detail the specific meaning and intent of every single bit of it one piece at a time...
Ergo one need only reference them to understand in explicit detail exactly what they MEANT by those words, what the intentions were, and with the Antifederalist pointing out distortions like that while Madison and Hamilton shovelled the good ole "No one would ever dare stoop so low" bolus - doubly ironic since Hamilton was a lying sack of shit intending on using those loopholes as soon as the freakin thing was ratified, which finally blew up in their faces when Adams pulled the mask off too early with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which might I point out to you bear quite the resemblence to both the McCarran Immigration Act and The Patriot Act...

Proving in my eyes, that the Antifederalists were right all along, AND that the Federalist->Republican party has been one long train of abuses ever intent on producing a new aristocracy, a new feudalism, and ever since the 30's, a new fascism as well, based on economic principles cribbed from Mussolini.
Some days it's like the GOP took every bad part of history and deliberately incorporated it into their party line.

So anyhows, it's not that easy to make such arbitrary re-interpretations when the words of the men who wrote that document are available in full, glorious explaination of EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT via the FP/AFP.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL