Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freeeee
"What's reasonable? "
Protecting the president, public order.

This is a good issue for the courts because they will be very deferential to such an important public interest as protecting the President, but they will have a broader view than the Secret Service.

The tricky issue is not safety but order- and under the First amendment the courts will allow only minimal restrictions on that count ( which these Clinton-era restrictions overstep IMHO).

It's a great example of the First Amendment in action in the real world, just the kind of issue it was made for.

74 posted on 09/24/2003 11:10:30 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmith
This is a good issue for the courts because they will be very deferential to such an important public interest as protecting the President, but they will have a broader view than the Secret Service.

I agree, although I have little faith in the courts upholding the Constitution. They have an abysmal track record to date.

You have a good point about the SS. They are beholden to the President. When he says jump, they say how high. Those with decent memories will remember what Hillary had them to do protesters. But even if they don't remember now, she'll be sure to give them a refresher course if she gets the chance.

And on that day, if I'm not banned, I'll be here to bump this thread to the top and give you all a great big "I told you so.".

79 posted on 09/24/2003 11:17:28 AM PDT by freeeee (I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson