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

[MikeK]

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."

The following is excerpted from the Washington Post article about this incident:

Although it’s impossible to know how Jefferson would have reacted to the court’s ruling (the third president was apparently quite fond of dancing), many in Saturday’s crowd said they thought Jefferson would have frowned on the decision."

 

[MikeK]

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.

Did you read, The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich?

If not, you really should.

 

[MikeK]

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

Rudeness is the weakling's imitation of strength, which speaks for your argument.

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.

What I make of that is it amounts to a typically lawyer-like barrow of convoluted bloviation intended to deflect my question. So I'll ask it again: Do you believe Rosa parks deserved to be arrested -- or not?

 

[MikeK]

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.

A critical point and worthy of much consideration.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I believe in common sense.

I also believe that too many people don't have any................