Here's a serious question: Is our Constitutional right of assembly trumped by local ordinances? If our 1A rights are subject to 'no-camping' regulations, what time does curfew begin? 11pm? Would you complain if they moved it to an earlier time? In effect, once you agree with the position that local authorities can regulate 'assembly', just what are the limits? Why not, say, limited to between 2pm-3pm for public safety issues? (That is, non commute times.)
Now, let's jump over to the 2A. Do you agree that the 2A is trumped by local/state ordinances? If yes, which ones do you agree with? Do you agree with registration? If not, why not? If the 1A can be subject to permits, fees, etc, why not the 2A?
I'm having a hard time reconciling FR's position on this whole affair with regards to basic Constitutional rights. Just how far can they be regulated? What if JR's original march (in a wheel chair) was circumscribed by arbitrary time limits? What's the difference between shutting down the mall @ 1pm or 11pm? Because it's dark?
Or do they not enjoy any rights in this situation?
I don’t have much use for bottom feeding scum.
If you don’t like that, consider yourself one of them and I’ll give you all the respect due to any other marxist scum.
Err, I’m not sure about you but my copy of the Constitution includes the word “peaceably.”.
“A large man began to choke him...”
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19150644
“We shoot white bitches like you around here.”
http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2011/10/20/source-abc-reporters-life-allegedly-threatened-at-occupy-oakland-we-shoot-white-bitches-like-you-around-here/
Last night in Oakland around 1000 people walked around downtown for a couple of hours. They can walk around the city until they drop for all I care as long as they don't break the law or disturb the peace. The news helicopters flying overhead is actually more of annoyance than the marchers.
BTW, I live three blocks from site of the Oakland confrontation.
semantic, we live in a constitutional republic. We allow ourselves to be governed with our consent, because theoretically, the laws passed by a representative government were created and passed by representatives whom we elected.
In this way, even if we didn’t vote for a government official, or we disagree with a law that is passed, we consent to the rule of law, because without it, we have anarchy.
If the public ordinances (supposedly put in place by people we elect) decree that malls close at 23:00, then if we disagree with that prdianance, we can work to change it through established mechanisms. If we fail to change anyone’s mind, we have three choices: Live with it, break the law, or move to another locality that has different ordinances or no ordinances.
There are no other choices.
Freedom to “peaceably assemble” is subject to interpretation. I submit that these mentally deficient people, banging on drums, defecating in the open, impeding the passage of people and vehicles and making a general ruckus are not “peaceably” assembling. If lived or worked right near there, I would feel that way twice over.
Those are some interesting thoughts regarding restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly.
I think the NYC rally is on private property, but even so...
If I wanted to have a tea party ralley in my front yard,
and a bunch of folks pitched tents there for several weeks,
I think my local government would eventually put a stop to it.
But, alas, the dis-honoring of private property rights has sadly been long-standing.
There are lots of municipal parks with lots of ordinances and restrictions
(i.e. no alcohol, no skateboarding, no dogs, no radios, and closed from dusk til dawn)
And, in addition, I guess there are many cities and towns where there is no such thing as a “public park” at all.
So where would such an “assembly” take place there?
I don’t know what the founders would have said about all of this.
A right to peaceful assembly...but where?
Which brings us to the matter of the 10th Amendment, where this discussion should probably be taking place.
I'd argue that OWS and its sister eruptions crossed the boundary between an assembly of the people and airing of grievances into the realm of a public nuisance from the first day and with the full intention of inciting a riot when they pitched tents and started s****ing on the lawn (and at least one police car). We can discuss the multiple reports of raping and pillaging later.
But you raise a valid question. Are there limits to what one can legally and without legitimate consequences do under the banner of "free speech and right of assembly"? The USSC has addressed that and said in so many words "Yes". If TEA Party gatherings behaved themselves like these groups they would deserve to be treated the same way, and the reverse holds as well.
If the "Occupy (fill-in-the-blank)" groups were simply gathering as like minded Communists, Anarchists, and anti-soap and water activists and followed normal rules of conduct they should have every Constitutional protection ... but Noooooo! They want to incite their little Revolution and as every revolutionary from the past can tell you there are consequences, like the whole "breaking eggs to make an omelet" their hero VI Lenin spoke about.
Note that the Constitution guarantees our right to PEACEABLY assemble....they have not done so.
The TEA Party did