Posted on 03/12/2016 6:48:09 PM PST by GLDNGUN
bump
I wasn’t ‘interpreting’, I was simply reading and referring to the words written in English which seem to be easy to understand .
Actually there were TWO charges.
Allow me to present it like this.
This ‘law’ was created during Obama’s term for the express purpose of protecting him from protesters when he was running for re-election. I think that has been established fairly well.
Does it then only apply to a President running for re-election (which is not how it’s worded) or does it apply to anyone the SS is protecting at a public event ?
..I wasn’t ‘interpreting’, I was simply reading and referring to the words written in English which seem to be easy to understand...
Unfortunately, when lawyers and courts get involved, there are different interpretations of plain words. That’s why there are myriad exceptions to search and seizure of the 4th Amendment. In a perfect world, no.
There is alot of controversy that you apparently arent aware of in this law.. There’s an analysis of a legal standby, void for vagueness, in the Cornell Law Review. No cases on this yet, but they are coming. I am in general agreement on the plain wording, but this is far from over.
DNC Protesters Assigned to Fenced-Off Parking Lot for Obama's Speech
I am very aware of it. The implication of the controversy is that the 'rule' should mean different things depending on WHO exactly is being protected, and WHOSE 'right' is being interfered with.
I cannot argue with that.
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.