If they turn themselves into a public nuissance then all the laws that allow people to get arrested for being a public nuissance apply
The policy in effect holds that dissent in itself is a public nuissance. That doesn't fly in a free country and is completely contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Why won't you hold "your guy" to higher standards than the Clintons? I'd be ashamed if my candidate did the same. I'd be writing a letter politely asking him to honor free speech, not arguing with people that are trying to keep this country free.
Stood up in court case after court case after court case, and in compliance with painfully obvious interpretation of short simple sentences, and the explanations to those short simple sentences in the Federalist papers DOES equal Constitutional.
That does indeed fly in a free county and is perfectly OK to the 1st Ammendment. By your interpretation if they wanted to shut the street down it would be OK because they're protesting. You're turning carrying a protest sign into an all purpose defense against other laws. Doesn't work that way, a person creating a public nuissance is doing so whether or not they're protesting something.
I'm holding Bush to the exact same standard I held Clinton. I'm disappointed he's clearing the path of protestors, but my disappointment doesn't make it unconstitutional. You don't know I haven't written a letter, but the person I'm arguing with isn't someone trying to keep this country free, it's a person creating a fictitious and silly interpretation of the Bill of Rights that I find dangerous in its shortsightedness and myopic worship of protest signs.