Posted on 10/19/2006 11:03:05 AM PDT by Res Nullius
Your opinion on the ruling does not matter in relation to the false argument you are making here. Municipalities cannot charge controversial groups the extra security costs.
Which means that the municipality must either watch its budget implode, raise taxes to the point where both the police and the Minutemen would get angry suburbanites fire-bombing them at assessment time, or tell the Minutemen "sorry, we can't afford it."
Note that this was to be an ongoing meeting.
The Minutemen are a lawful group, of citizens, so why should they be refused equal access to a public (taxpayer funded) facility? And the chief's cop-out doesn't cut it. The Minutemen are not the ones who are causing trouble - it's the radical open-borders crowd who are promising a protest, maybe even violence, against the Minutemen. That group should be held responsible, not the law-abiding group who just wants to hold weekly meetings in a building that their tax dollars are maintaining.
"...people have constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to gather.
So gather and meet on private property."
Huh? Is that how you feel about free speech as well? Just keep at at home? Not very well "free" then is it?
So your argument applied to an event outside on the street and an auditorium for thousands. Not inside a building for 100-150 people. Great argument.
Show me the law congress passed to refuse this use, and I will support you 100%. Obviously, none was passed, so while this may suck, it may be "wrong", but it is NOT a denial of their first amendment rights to assemble and speak. That is the part that I am objecting to, couching this issue as a first amendment thing. It isn't.
See post 59. SCOTUS says you cannot bill a controversial group for police overtime due to their views. A rational corrollary is that you cannot deny a permit because their views may attract a violent response.
I may be wrong about this, but isn't the "right to assemble" only a restraint on the federal government? Or is it government in general?
The First Amendment has been extended to all levels of government.
In June 1992, in a case involving a white supremacist group in Forsyth County, Ga., the Supreme Court said communities that impose permit fees for parades and rallies can't charge more for controversial groups just because they might need more police protection.
_________________
How does this ruling apply? It seems to suggest that if you charge a fee for a permit, you cannot charge MORE for a controversial group. The ruling, at least the parts that are quoted on this thread, say nothing about municipalities being able to deny permits for (supposed) budget issues. Clearly not a comparison of apples to apples.
I do not disagree that the situation sucks. It's a shame that they cannot meet where they want, but I see no point in raising 1st amendment issues where they do not apply.
Someone help me out here. I can't seem to find the word "permit" in the first amendment.
Simple. If a municipality cannot charge extract for security for controversial groups, in turn they cannot deny a controversial group a meeting permit because security might cost more for them.
Try "right to peaceably assemble"
Try having regular church meetings in your house, assuming you live in a suburban neighborhood.
Really? Can you quote the ruling that says so, or did you see it in the penumbra?
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.
Yeah, so let's discriminate against the American citizens. After all, we wouldn't want to be mean to those illegals, let's just kick the taxpayers in the teeth, they'll just take it.
The bias runs deep in Yakima
http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/315616228098479
There's a chill wind blowing....
The MM should be able to get this overturned quite easily.
Thx. I wasn't sure.
"Undocumented immigrants are protected by our Constitution..."
I must of missed this part, I can't seem to find it anywhere.
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.