How Can We Stop The People From Blocking Traffic On Our Highways And Streets ?

[rcfieldz]

How Can We Stop The People From Blocking Traffic On Our Highways And Streets ?
Maybe the cops need to use monster trucks with cow catchers plowing over the stupid people and then have front loaders scrape up whats left and haul it away in huge dump trucks to a some place that will not interfere with the people just trying to go about their business.

 

[Katzndogz]

What happened to Rachel Corrie?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

 

[rcfieldz]

I can see a triangular formation of three to five monster trucks clearing the freeways and highways but there would be alot to clean up afterwards.

 

[rcfieldz]

What happened to Rachel Corrie?

Rachel Corrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OldLady]

How Can We Stop The People From Blocking Traffic On Our Highways And Streets ?
Maybe the cops need to use monster trucks with cow catchers plowing over the stupid people and then have front loaders scrape up whats left and haul it away in huge dump trucks to a some place that will not interfere with the people just trying to go about their business.

How about changing your attitude that "These People" deserve to be plowed over? How dare They interfere with your ability to ignore their justified complaints?
GFY

 

[Silent Warrior]

Justified complaints such as how dare that cop shoot the guy that is trying to kill him. Besides, if they have a complaint that I can't do anything about, why hold me up in traffic. If you are going to protest police action why not do it at the police station?

 

[martybegan]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

Freedom of movement isnt in the constitution and doesnt trump peoples right to assemble.

 

[martybegan]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

Freedom of movement isnt in the constitution and doesnt trump peoples right to assemble.

they have a right to assemble and redress grievances against the government, not my commute home. Once they block traffic and other's lawful right to travel, they should be arrested.

And the right to travel is found in the constitution, its why States cannot enforce border controls for citizens between them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

Freedom of movement isnt in the constitution and doesnt trump peoples right to assemble.

they have a right to assemble and redress grievances against the government, not my commute home. Once they block traffic and other's lawful right to travel, they should be arrested..

Thats not part of the constitution either

 

[Preacher]

What happened to Rachel Corrie?

Rachel Corrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was murder

 

[martybegan]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

Freedom of movement isnt in the constitution and doesnt trump peoples right to assemble.

they have a right to assemble and redress grievances against the government, not my commute home. Once they block traffic and other's lawful right to travel, they should be arrested..

Thats not part of the constitution either

Sigh....

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ClosedCaption]

Change the constitution to read: right to assemble unless road rage or general rabble occurs.

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

Freedom of movement isnt in the constitution and doesnt trump peoples right to assemble.

they have a right to assemble and redress grievances against the government, not my commute home. Once they block traffic and other's lawful right to travel, they should be arrested..

Thats not part of the constitution either

Sigh....

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like you have a supreme court case to file then. But be careful of the consequences involving restricting your right to protest.

I've heard that doesnt help the citizens at all

 

[martybegan]

The right to assemble does not trump my right to freedom of movement.

That being said, there should be no prior restraint, just get the wagons ready and arrest everyone who sets foot on the roadway.

Freedom of movement isnt in the constitution and doesnt trump peoples right to assemble.

they have a right to assemble and redress grievances against the government, not my commute home. Once they block traffic and other's lawful right to travel, they should be arrested..

Thats not part of the constitution either

Sigh....

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like you have a supreme court case to file then. But be careful of the consequences involving restricting your right to protest.

I've heard that doesnt help the citizens at all

How is this restricting their right to protest? I could see your point if they wanted to approach a police station, or a courthouse, or a State Capital, or a Town municipal building and were stopped. Regular city streets are fair game to me. I saw a protest down Houston St a few years ago over the Furgeson thing, and I didn't have an issue with it. They were also moving with traffic, not blocking it, but traffic was ground to a halt in manhattan. But they were valid pedestrians, even if walking in the street.

Deliberately stopping my from getting from point A to point B, on the other hand, especially on a restricted access road, where NO pedestrians are allowed, (except in emergencies) is 1) counterproductive, people will not rally to you over it and 2) dangerous to the people walking AND drivers.

They should be arrested immediately.

 

[blastoff]

Two words come to mind...floor it!

 

[martybegan]

Two words come to mind...floor it!

That's an expected gut reaction, but I don't want to run anyone over, or even bump them a bit.

However, I have been known to suffer from road rage, and I wonder how I would react if I was at the front of the line when they decided to cross traffic and block it.

 

[WillowTree]

I found out c-4 works well.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How is this restricting their right to protest?

If you want it to be not allowed in certain areas for certain reasons that is the definition of restriction

 

[martybegan]

How is this restricting their right to protest?

If you want it to be not allowed in certain areas for certain reasons that is the definition of restriction

Any pedestrian is restricted on a limited access highway at all times except during emergencies, there is no content based restriction there.

They would be better off all getting in cars and driving as a block at 5 MPH, at that point all they are doing is violating minimum speed regulations.

And what are they protesting, the ability of other people to get home, or where they are going? At that point there is no "protest", there is only one person forcing on another.