This is a DISGRACE!!!!!!!!

[Missourian]

WASHINGTON -- California and other states seeking to curtail funeral protests are following a politically popular but legally disputable path.
Supreme Court, here they come.


This week, California lawmakers joined their counterparts in Arizona, Illinois and other states in passing tougher new restrictions on protests at funerals. In particular, legislators hope to deter members of a small, aggressively loud Kansas church who travel long distances to picket military funerals, where they often proclaim that dead soldiers are God's punishment for America's sins.


"I think this will survive constitutional challenge," California Democratic state Sen. Ted Lieu said of his bill Friday, "but that's not to say there aren't legal issues raised."

Read more: Battle over funeral protests seems destined for Supreme Court - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com
​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Read Missourian's post concerning what the reasonable regulations might be.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the free exercise thereof....." and you can't say a prayer in a public meeting any more. Tell me how that's "no law."

Their are several important aspects to Missourian's quote. One is that content can't be limited only "times, places and manners." The other is the standard of review for the regulation, it must serve an important state interest. That is a mid-range heightened review standard. Now, you might want to attack the standard of review and say that the feds should have to show a "compelling state interest" to curtail a Constitutional right, but the fact is there is regulation of Constitutional rights.

You can not like it and you can fight to change it, but that is the fact currently.

The fact that the government violates the Constitution elsewhere doesn't mean we should accept them violating it here. The Constitution says nothing about "reasonable regulations." It says "The Congress shall make no law..." Period.

I believe I addressed that in my post. You can fight it if you want to but the system of Constitutional interpretation is well settled in the law. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it does mean that short of a Constitutional Amendment changing it, it will not be.

If it takes an amendment to enforce an amendment we already have then we have a serious problem.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law..." Yes, there are legitimate challenges, civil disobedience being one of them.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Something tells me Jefferson would support the freedom of expression over "reasonable regulation."

Read Missourian's post concerning what the reasonable regulations might be.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the free exercise thereof....." and you can't say a prayer in a public meeting any more. Tell me how that's "no law."

Their are several important aspects to Missourian's quote. One is that content can't be limited only "times, places and manners." The other is the standard of review for the regulation, it must serve an important state interest. That is a mid-range heightened review standard. Now, you might want to attack the standard of review and say that the feds should have to show a "compelling state interest" to curtail a Constitutional right, but the fact is there is regulation of Constitutional rights.

You can not like it and you can fight to change it, but that is the fact currently.

Sure you can...as long as you are not doing it under the umbrella of governmental authority. Show me any private citizen who has prayed in public who has been shut down and arrested for that.

Shouldn't make any difference. We used to have convocations all the time at public meetings and they still do in both houses of Congress.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The fact that the government violates the Constitution elsewhere doesn't mean we should accept them violating it here. The Constitution says nothing about "reasonable regulations." It says "The Congress shall make no law..." Period.

I believe I addressed that in my post. You can fight it if you want to but the system of Constitutional interpretation is well settled in the law. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it does mean that short of a Constitutional Amendment changing it, it will not be.

If it takes an amendment to enforce an amendment we already have then we have a serious problem.

Who said we didn't have a problem?

You've been talking about "normative" what should be. I'm talking about what is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where does it say we have freedom of expression?

That's what this is about...so find it for me.

Then why bring up a First Amendment argument? The Ninth Amendment is where you'll find the freedom of expression.

Nice try...freedom of expression is extrapolated from the right to freedom of speech.


Permit regulations are analogous to proscriptive regulations on free speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The permit regulations allow law enforcement adequate time to make preparations for protests that may easily get out of hand and endanger the public.

Many protests and anti-portests, by there very nature are extremely volatile, and prone to violent clashes.

Not this one of course...but the supreme court does not allow permits to be required only of certain groups...it must be required of ALL protests.

If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit.

So these demonstrators being arrested is not only justified...it is required.

Speech is a form of expression, but not the only one. So extrapolate it from wherever you like, I personally like the Ninth Amendment. Regardless, we both agree that it is protected by the Constitution. The difference is in the degree, I think. You see this as a problem:

"If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit."

I see this as the only plausible scenario permitted by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say that we have to have a permit to peaceably assemble, so therefore we don't have to have one.

 

[MikeK]

They broke the law.

And, they intended to get arrested. Ergo....

He didn't say they were subject to arrest. He said they deserve to be arrested.

1) Do you agree there is a difference?

2) Do you believe they deserve to be arrested?

3) If so, why?

If you break the law, you "deserve" to be arrested. If you are "subject" to arrest, you have broken a law. I don't know why you would be "subject" to arrest if you have broken no laws. Now, if you decide to pick a fight with a cop, you can go from not subject to arrest, to subject to arrest pretty quick, but common sense should tell you that much.

Given all that, I think it's a stupid law, but there it is.

While Rosa Parks was subject to arrest, as she well knew, do you believe she deserved to be arrested?

The answer to that question will identify your political persuasion as well as whether or not you are or will be a defense attorney worthy of hiring. Taking it further, imagine that you are Rosa Parks' lawyer, what would your summation be?

 

[keee keee]

Should handle these thugs like Old man Daley did during the 69 riots in Chicago.Gave shoot to kill orders for arsonist. The good old days when you respected laws followed the law and the police.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WASHINGTON -- California and other states seeking to curtail funeral protests are following a politically popular but legally disputable path.
Supreme Court, here they come.


This week, California lawmakers joined their counterparts in Arizona, Illinois and other states in passing tougher new restrictions on protests at funerals. In particular, legislators hope to deter members of a small, aggressively loud Kansas church who travel long distances to picket military funerals, where they often proclaim that dead soldiers are God's punishment for America's sins.


"I think this will survive constitutional challenge," California Democratic state Sen. Ted Lieu said of his bill Friday, "but that's not to say there aren't legal issues raised."

Read more: Battle over funeral protests seems destined for Supreme Court - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com
​

The problem here, as with the memorials, is public property. We have no right to ban those protesters as long as they're on public property, offensive as we may find them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe I addressed that in my post. You can fight it if you want to but the system of Constitutional interpretation is well settled in the law. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it does mean that short of a Constitutional Amendment changing it, it will not be.

If it takes an amendment to enforce an amendment we already have then we have a serious problem.

Who said we didn't have a problem?

You've been talking about "normative" what should be. I'm talking about what is.

That was essentially an add on to what you were saying, I understood your position. Or at least I think I do, not being in your head I'm obviously unable to say for certain.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Should handle these thugs like Old man Daley did during the 69 riots in Chicago.Gave shoot to kill orders for arsonist. The good old days when you respected laws followed the law and the police.

Damn right. You dance peacefully to yourself at the Jefferson Memorial and we'll kill you. That'll show 'em.

 

[Tech_Esq]

He didn't say they were subject to arrest. He said they deserve to be arrested.

1) Do you agree there is a difference?

2) Do you believe they deserve to be arrested?

3) If so, why?

If you break the law, you "deserve" to be arrested. If you are "subject" to arrest, you have broken a law. I don't know why you would be "subject" to arrest if you have broken no laws. Now, if you decide to pick a fight with a cop, you can go from not subject to arrest, to subject to arrest pretty quick, but common sense should tell you that much.

Given all that, I think it's a stupid law, but there it is.

While Rosa Parks was subject to arrest, as she well knew, do you believe she deserved to be arrested?

The answer to that question will identify your political persuasion as well as whether or not you are or will be a defense attorney worthy of hiring. Taking it further, imagine that you are Rosa Parks' lawyer, what would your summation be?

I really don't give a shit about your analysis of defense attorneys.

The moral/immoral question was brought to the fore by Ms. Park's arrest. Without the arrest and and the subsequent public rebuke of the laws that required her arrest, the civil rights movement would have been deprived of one of its primary sparks.

In a country run under the rule of law, the law must apply equally to everyone. The fact that we had laws that did not apply equally to everyone was ultimately the undoing of and unfair system, but that system had to be legally unwound. Therefore, the laws that created the Jim Crow system had to be challenged and the people had to endure the penalties that were in place at the time for those unlawful acts. I don't know what sort of sense you are using the the word "deserve" in. I can only answer you that if you break the law, you deserve the penalty for breaking that law. Whether that law is a proper law or not is another question. (And, a mitigating circumstance to be argued in the penalty phase). But, clearly, you lose the moral component of civil disobedience if there is no penalty to be endured by the "disobedient."

As far as the summation goes, I'll give you the old lawyer saw:

"If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, argue the Constitution. If none of those are on your side, ARGUE LIKE HELL"

Make what you will of that.

 

[Missourian]

Then why bring up a First Amendment argument? The Ninth Amendment is where you'll find the freedom of expression.

Nice try...freedom of expression is extrapolated from the right to freedom of speech.


Permit regulations are analogous to proscriptive regulations on free speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The permit regulations allow law enforcement adequate time to make preparations for protests that may easily get out of hand and endanger the public.

Many protests and anti-portests, by there very nature are extremely volatile, and prone to violent clashes.

Not this one of course...but the supreme court does not allow permits to be required only of certain groups...it must be required of ALL protests.

If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit.

So these demonstrators being arrested is not only justified...it is required.

The difference is in the degree, I think. You see this as a problem:

"If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit."

I see this as the only plausible scenario permitted by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say that we have to have a permit to peaceably assemble, so therefore we don't have to have one.

I don't agree.

Free speech is protected by the Constitution....up the point that it may potentially cause harm.


I have a right to bear arms...I right that may not to be infringed...but I can't carry my gun into the capitol building.


And though I have a right to assemble in protest...the government may introduce a reasonable requirement that I procure a permit.

No skin off my nose...as long as my right is not infringed on.

Now, if that permit is refused for no reason...we have a BIG problem...

But not one that is in anyway connected to these circumstances.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nice try...freedom of expression is extrapolated from the right to freedom of speech.


Permit regulations are analogous to proscriptive regulations on free speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The permit regulations allow law enforcement adequate time to make preparations for protests that may easily get out of hand and endanger the public.

Many protests and anti-portests, by there very nature are extremely volatile, and prone to violent clashes.

Not this one of course...but the supreme court does not allow permits to be required only of certain groups...it must be required of ALL protests.

If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit.

So these demonstrators being arrested is not only justified...it is required.

The difference is in the degree, I think. You see this as a problem:

"If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit."

I see this as the only plausible scenario permitted by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say that we have to have a permit to peaceably assemble, so therefore we don't have to have one.

I don't agree.

Free speech is protected by the Constitution....up the point that it may potentially cause harm.


I have a right to bear arms...I right that is may not to be infringed...but I can't carry my gun into the capitol building.


And though I have a right to assemble in protest...the government may introduce a reasonable requirement that I procure a permit.

No skin off my nose...my right is not infringed on.

Now, if that permit is refused for no reason...we have a BIG problem...

But not one that is in anyway connected to these circumstances.

If you give them the power to force you to get a permit, then you've essentially ceded any argument when it comes to them denying your permit for whatever reason. Again, the "reasonable" requirement or what have you is an invention of case law not of the Constitution.

 

[LAfrique]

We had a thread on this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...d-others-arrested-and-abused-for-dancing.html

I don't recall if I made this point in that thread or not, but I'll make it here. The cops might have been justified had they been dancing at the Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln certainly violated enough freedoms during his reign that stifling the freedom of expression at his memorial almost makes sense. But Thomas Jefferson?

I just don't get it Kevin.

Why stir up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble.

It's silly.

I can understand protesting the war in Iraq...I don't agree, but I definitely understand.

But protesting the refusal of The Man to allow you to get yo dance on...c'mon now.

liberalism is a mental disorder

Infidel, are you a motorcyclist and /ora gambler? Got you.

 

[Missourian]

The difference is in the degree, I think. You see this as a problem:

"If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit."

I see this as the only plausible scenario permitted by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say that we have to have a permit to peaceably assemble, so therefore we don't have to have one.

I don't agree.

Free speech is protected by the Constitution....up the point that it may potentially cause harm.


I have a right to bear arms...I right that is may not to be infringed...but I can't carry my gun into the capitol building.


And though I have a right to assemble in protest...the government may introduce a reasonable requirement that I procure a permit.

No skin off my nose...my right is not infringed on.

Now, if that permit is refused for no reason...we have a BIG problem...

But not one that is in anyway connected to these circumstances.

If you give them the power to force you to get a permit, then you've essentially ceded any argument when it comes to them denying your permit for whatever reason. Again, the "reasonable" requirement or what have you is an invention of case law not of the Constitution.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I am an huge 2nd amendment guy.

But I understand that the "uninfringable" right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean I have a right to carry a loaded UZI into the Capital Building.

And that's definitely an infringement.

But it's a reasonable infringement...just like requiring a protest permit to keep the Klu Klux Klan and the Black Panther Party from deciding to protest on the same street corner the same day.

Just like the UZI in the Capitol Building...that's a recipe for disaster.

But because the Constitution does not allow just the KKK or the BPP to be singled out for permits, everyone is required to procure a permit.

So the same Constitution that guarantees freedom of assembly ALSO guarantees equal treatment under the law...and that leads us to no dancing in the Jefferson Memorial without a permit.

 

[LAfrique]

A few months ago I heard about people that were dancing in monuments in DC and getting arrested. I didn't think anything of it until I came across this video. This is sickening. I wonder how modern America would have tolerated the protests of the 60's?


Kissing in Public Brutal Arrest May 28th 2011 Raw Video (Plz Share) - YouTube

I watched the clip and think some vital information is missing here. While I am not a fan of even my own law enforcement in Texas (especially in Space City) due to their unspoken policy of "show them (the people) who is boss if they (the people) do not immediately obey," I am guessing there may have been a posted sign prohibiting people from that portion of monuments. I noticed that those who were far away were not bothered by the police. Thus, I think just kissing and/or dancing was not reason for arresting those folks: A posted sign or verbal warning may have given and failure to heed resulted in arrest. Just my brief observation.

 

[Missourian]

We've been moved.

 

[MikeK]

I think that the cops should go home and tell their children how brave they were today in protecting our freedoms and them tomorrow fire them all for being stupid. And then we wonder why a lot of us hold the police in low regards.

I am acutely concerned with what I perceive to be incrementally increasing militarism and authoritarian disposition in American law enforcement, so I agree with your feelings in this matter. Because of my interest in this rising phenomenon I often watch the tv documentary, COPS, which affords an appreciable level of insight into the behavior and attitude of police all across America. One thing I've learned is American police officers without exception are required by routine procedure to effect arrests by commanding the subject to lie face down, or forcing them to do so, and by placing a knee on the subject's neck while handcuffs are being applied.

This procedural requirement prohibits any discretion on the part of the arresting officer(s), meaning even the most passive and cooperative arrestee must be subjected to it without exception. As humiliating and as demeaning as this procedure is it is possible to perform it in a relatively gentle, moderated manner. But all too often it is performed with extreme vigor and at times with a plainly brutal level of force -- even when such is clearly unnecessary.

It thus occurs that the manifestly authoritarian procedure serves as a sanctioned, legitimized means for arresting officers to brutally manhandle an arrestee whom they dislike for one reason or other ("attitude," nature of offense, etc). I have seen such examples as a subject who led police on a chase in a stolen car but who eventually stopped and passively surrendered with hands in the air and began to voluntarily fall to his knees without being told to but was unnecessarily and forcefully tackled by several cops, slammed to the ground with a knee driving his head into a road surface while his arms were aggressively twisted upward as handcuffs were applied. As the passive subject screamed in pain, saying, "I'm not resisting!", the police were shouting, "Stop resisting!", which I presume is done to convey the impression of necessity to onlookers.

I believe the opinions of those who oppose the arrests seen in the topic video are predicated on the way the arrests were conducted rather than on the reason for the arrests, which is relatively benign. While it may be said the arrests were justified because some law was violated, the level of force employed is clearly disproportional to the alleged offense.

 

[MikeK]

I think that the cops should go home and tell their children how brave they were today in protecting our freedoms and them tomorrow fire them all for being stupid. And then we wonder why a lot of us hold the police in low regards.

But, the people that wrote the law get a pass?

Now we're getting down to the bone of it.

 

[MikeK]

Yea well it also gets you arrested. And in this case they law still exists and is still being enforced so the only thing they accomplished was a youtube video.

And quite a bit of interest right here and presumably elsewhere. And that's how it goes.