Posted on 10/27/2011 8:47:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“The guy should have had enough SITAWARE ...”
Bingo!
I would think that their 'first amendment rights' would end when they infringe on others' first amendment rights regardless of whether there is violence or not.
” For those who aren’t paying attention, there are major changes afoot. “
It’s called a socialist revolution. We are at war.
Semantic is being a pudding stirrer nothing more .He/she is nothing more than a closet anarchist.
Which brings us to the matter of the 10th Amendment, where this discussion should probably be taking place.
I'd argue that OWS and its sister eruptions crossed the boundary between an assembly of the people and airing of grievances into the realm of a public nuisance from the first day and with the full intention of inciting a riot when they pitched tents and started s****ing on the lawn (and at least one police car). We can discuss the multiple reports of raping and pillaging later.
But you raise a valid question. Are there limits to what one can legally and without legitimate consequences do under the banner of "free speech and right of assembly"? The USSC has addressed that and said in so many words "Yes". If TEA Party gatherings behaved themselves like these groups they would deserve to be treated the same way, and the reverse holds as well.
If the "Occupy (fill-in-the-blank)" groups were simply gathering as like minded Communists, Anarchists, and anti-soap and water activists and followed normal rules of conduct they should have every Constitutional protection ... but Noooooo! They want to incite their little Revolution and as every revolutionary from the past can tell you there are consequences, like the whole "breaking eggs to make an omelet" their hero VI Lenin spoke about.
How? In what way? Has there ever been a case of a Tea Party gathering doing what the OWSies have been doing? Have TPers ever refused to disperse when asked?....if that's ever happened.
Question for you semantic, is the production of & possession of bestiality kiddie porn & yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire protected by the 1st amendment in your view of it?
Does your right of free speech include spray painting graffiti on public structures & the private property of others ? Does the right of free speech include interfering with the free movement of emergency medical service personnel in the performance of their duties thru the city streets?
The police cited several incidents of vandalism ,health code violations ,interfering with EMS services as reason for declaring the squatter camp an “Unlawful assembly “ ie a not peaceable mob. The members of this camp were given days worth of warning .
The government duly elected by the citizens of Oakland had come to the conclusion that the squatter camp was no longer a peaceable assembly & acted in accordance with the laws of the state of California & the City of Oakland . If you have a case that there was wholesale violation of either the US Constitution or the California constitution sue the city of Oakland it’s your civic duty .
I think the most important word in the 1A is the first word. It is specifically limiting Congress’ powers. Not the powers of NYC or Oakland. Not even the powers of NY or Ca. So if Oakland rejected the permit outright for the protest, it would not be in violation of the Constitution as written. In fact, arguing that any city is cracking down on 1A rights is in and of itself extra Constitutionial.
On the same token, the 2A specifically does not mention which body it applies to.
Wow. You've really mixed up your apples and dishwashers here. You're right - Marshall came up with judicial review in 1803, to which you apparently are objecting here. But that's the exact opposite position to the one you should be taking. Because absent judicial review, there is no mechanism to protect the rights you claim to be protecting.
You are arguing here that a state law that restricts assembly in this manner is unconstitutional. But it takes a court to strike down a state or municipal law for impermissibly restricting First Amendment rights. Yet here you are arguing that courts shouldn't have the right of judicial review at all. No Marbury v. Madison (I'll skip all the 14th amendment incorporation stuff), no Supreme Court to tell Oakland that it can't do this. So who tells Oakland that it can't ban protesting period, if not a court decision saying that it violates a Constitutional right?
Yet, you are against judicial review. That's just...an odd position to take.
As an earlier poster noted (finally thank G_d), the core issue is "peaceable".
Really? Where does that word appear in the First Amendment? Who decided that it is only peacable protests that are okay, because that limitation doesn't appear in the Constitution. Whose role is it to interpret the First Amendment as only protecting peacable protests?
Is purposely blocking traffic by linking hands "peaceable"?
I don't know. Who decides what is "peaceable" and what isn't? Who decides whether or not protestors can block a road? You?
Hey Scott, sh*t happens when you step in it!
Note that the Constitution guarantees our right to PEACEABLY assemble....they have not done so.
The TEA Party did
Too funny. I'll assume you're joking.
I also take issue with those numb-sculls. I am torn as to whether or not I will ill on him and his type. At the very least I hope he learns a very valuable lesson and repents in his wrong thinking.
I haven’t seen anything to indicate that police would fire tear gas at a tea party event. Police I’ve seen at tea party events were relaxed and happy mostly looking away from the crowd (Some of those tea partiers were openly carrying and police were still relaxed.)
Somewhere deep in my files I have a photo of a 20 something tea partier with a mohawk covered with tattoos, carrying a huge Gadsen flag, grinning at a cop as he shows him his shoulder holster.
Yes, at the 19-21 second mark, you can see him fall HARD.
I also do not believe the 1A prohibits christian symbols in public areas; the 2A does not entitle me to my own Avenger Air Defense System; there is no right to privacy contained therein ergo no right to an abortion or pornography, The 14A does not imply any woman lucky enough to successfully sneak across the border can pop out a newly minted US citizen.
If anyone is doing injury to the Constitution it is the various interests who casually quote it without context, stretching and contorting it to suit their own pet issues & to hell with original intent.
Answer my question. You seem intent on avoiding the issue of where the freedom of one citizen ends with their actions intersect with the freedom of another citizen.
I know why you avoid answering the issue, and it is because you are wrong. That is why you try to change the subject with an irrelevant red herring involving the Second Amendment. Your buddies probably told you that was a good button to push to get conservatives off topic.
I am not biting, though. Stay on topic.
With rights come responsibilities, and rights are not unlimited, they are limited by responsibility to our fellow citizens and the rule of law.
You sound like those people who don’t wish to accept the responsibilities that goes with the rights we are accorded under law. Fine, that says a lot about you and where you stand on issues of personal responsibility.
Man up and answer the question.
“Dude”.
You kind of got to the heart of the matter there, though I believe discussing the issue with that poster is a waste of time, because the poster isn't really interested in discussing the issue.
According to that person, there can be no law or ordinance passed that would infringe in any way on the "right" of a person to assemble, whenever, wherever and do whatever they wish. The "rights" of other citizens are not in the least bit important, and in that world view, there is no responsibility to respect the "rights" of others because it is always about themselves.
It is that child-like Rousseauian view that we should be free to do what we want without the constraints of living in a society with others and having to consider their freedoms.
It is inconceivable to people like them that someone might not view as part of the First Amendment the right to tear up and destroy public property the rest of us have to use our tax dollars to repair, the right to fornicate in public, use drugs in public, listen to profanity on loudspeakers or read it written on posters that are displayed where normal, law-abiding people have to navigate through.
Yeah. It is a hideously, self-centered, selfish world view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.