The Constipationality Issue: La Habra's Ineffectual Police Department & The Constitution

A few days ago, a memorial to the victims of 9/11 in La Habra, California was destroyed by a group war protestors, that collection of really bright personages who hate the country they refuse to leave. The memorial, privately constructed and maintained since September 12, 2001, was displayed on a fence. I'm assuming here, but since most municipalities don't build the fences between houses and public sidewalks, I'd guess the display was on private property. In any event, the display contained a large number of American flags, most definitely purchased privately.

The flags apparently had the same effect on the protestors that a red piece of cloth has on a fighting bull. It wasn't reported whether the members of the group snorted and pawed the ground before they charged, but given the parallel thought capabilities of the two species in question, it's a fair bet something similar ensued.

The police were of course called. They were, in fact, called several times. They made no arrests the first time, you see, so the protestors kept returning to continue their little demolition project. Now, since I've heard of the police hauling a guy off to the slammer because his wife said he yelled at her, I found this an interesting action to take - or NOT take, as the case may be. So, while that mischievous little collection of mental wizards trashed the victims of 9/11, the flag, the country - and PRIVATE PROPERTY - the cops gave a dissertation on the First Amendment rights being exercised right before everyone's wide and incredulous eyes and what a fine thing it is to live in a country where such expressions are tolerated.

This story brought to mind a couple of things. First and foremost was tolerance - and how I would have expressed it had that patriotic display been mine. The first round would have been fired into the ground, after which I'd best have seen nothing but protestor posteriors moving away at a high rate of speed. The rest of the clip would have been held in reserve for "contingencies". Not to worry; it's a "peace" movement, right?

But the more cerebral, less gut-reaction aspect of this was to question just what, in the minds of those cops and protestors, constitutes this "First Amendment" they keep cawing about? I mean, you hear its provisions, both real and imagined, parroted by the Left in this country more often than Madonna violates the rules of good taste. A school kid wants to offer pleas for divine sympathy before a big test? Can't, says the Left. Separation of church and state, you know. Besides, there isn't enough time. This is "Islam Day" and there are planned activities.

Ah, but you wanna desecrate a few flags, even someone else's flags that THEY bought and THEY installed on THEIR property, and the rest of us who showed tolerance by not wasting you on the spot get lectured on the First Amendment if we complain about your vandalism.

Okay, maybe it's time someone dusted that amendment off so we can see what it really says:

"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 to PEACEABLY assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment, like the Second, is simple English. Maybe we should start teaching that language again, particularly to La Habra's cops. As you can see, there is nothing said about a "separation of church and state". It only says the government can't make you pray to its official God - AND IT CAN'T STOP YOU FROM PRAYING TO YOURS. It guarantees the right to assemble PEACEABLY, which doesn't include LAYING WASTE TO SOMEONE ELSE'S PATRIOTIC DISPLAY. Lastly, it guarantees the right to expect redress of grievances, NOT LECTURES ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM SOME MORON WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE CONSTITUTION FROM CONSTIPATION.

The flap surrounding the 9/11 display is only one of a very long list of stories regarding misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights, but it's one of the more dramatic. Al Gore, in a campaign bid to make everyone think he was an actual American, once spoke of the Constitution as a "living document". He was partially right in that we have added to it over the decades, but there was a frightening aspect to his words. Gore's inferrence was that the Constitution can be changed by having provisions REMOVED.

Well, where the Bill of Rights is concerned, the framers anticipated guys like Al and that lecturing cop when they wrote the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is, in other words, set in stone. No branch of government - executive, legislative or judicial - has the authority to alter the Bill of Rights in any way. Nor do state or municipal entities. So why have cities and states in America decreed your Second Amendment isn't valid in their jurisdictions when they have no authority to do so? Why has the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that we are "...to be secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects..." been violated in those legalized money-grabs misnamed drug abatement laws? Why is that kid not allowed to silently express his religious beliefs before a test, then forced to study someone else's?

And why is the destruction of a privately owned and maintained patriotic display by marauding protestors considered to be protected under the Bill of Rights?

2 posted on 03/14/2003 5:35:32 AM PST by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)

The simple fact that the police did not enforce the law when they saw people violating the law in this case is another travesty that adds to the undercurrent of alienation that many Americans feel. Imagine if someone were found taking down anti-war posters someplace where these posters were legitimately placed. They would be villified for abridging the Free speech rights of the protestors. Even in CA regarding this 9/11 memorial some of the protestors are upset about the fact that their vandalism has been fixed by the property owner and the property owner's agent (the person who maintains the memorial is acting as the property owner's agent).

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.