Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
elpasomatters.org
Texas is a "Red State" due to how they turn out and vote in National Elections. Many down there are too dumb to know, it is more important to the way they actually live, vote in the local elections.Dem run city....My surprised face.
Come to that are there any major cities left in TX that is not dem-run?
They will have a lot of company, because that is where the folks belong who have Trump signs all over their cars and homes. That bullshit belongs in the garbage can.They should make BLM picket next to garbage cans so their picketers will feel right at home.
She was charged with not having a permit to protest.
You are not required and you never have to get a permit to protest. Protesting is a protected free speech action as the city found out.
Cities do pass stuff like this all the time BUT they are not enforceable. You do not have to get the permission of those you protest to protest.
Where, exactly does the Constitution say we have a "RIGHT" to "protest."I have been arguing this for years. You DO NOT have to get the governments permission to exercise your Constitutional rights.
Where, exactly does the Constitution say we have a "RIGHT" to "protest."
What is the EXACT wording? I can't remember reading such a statement in our Constitution.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, and you don't sound like one, either. So it would be foolish to waste time in this thread arguing about something about which neither of us is an expert.
Some people assert that black riots are protected under A1. But the Constitution states that "peaceful assembly" is a right - not "rioting."
The circumstances have a huge bearing on how these "rights" are interpreted.
And, like it or not, our Constitution has areas that are vague, and we're purposely left open to interpretation. If it had not been written that way, it might well have NEVER been ratified, as So many parties had opposing interests.
As far as the 2nd Ammendment is concerned , I don't see how you connect that to any "roght" to protest.
In any case, these arguments often get long and hairy. I don't have the time , or interest, to pursue this with you.
Iwas simply stating my disagreement with your blanket view of A1 and A2 regarding a "RIGHT" to "protest."
Have a nice day.
"Concede!"We were discussing protests. If you wish to change the discussion, well.......I'll take it you concede my point and we can from there.
I really don't care if you believe it or not. The city backed down as they knew they were wrong.
wanna bet?She was charged with not having a permit to protest.
You are not required and you never have to get a permit to protest. Protesting is a protected free speech action as the city found out.
Cities do pass stuff like this all the time BUT they are not enforceable. You do not have to get the permission of those you protest to protest.
So trying to act like they still have the power they will enact new regulations that if not met, they acknowledge they will do nothing about.
I have been arguing this for years. You DO NOT have to get the governments permission to exercise your Constitutional rights.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 435 U.S. at 798.Where, exactly does the Constitution say we have a "RIGHT" to "protest."
What is the EXACT wording? I can't remember reading such a statement in our Constitution.
if you take away the first amendment then folks will use the second amendment to fix the problem.I'm not a constitutional scholar, and you don't sound like one, either. So it would be foolish to waste time in this thread arguing about something about which neither of us is an expert.
Some people assert that black riots are protected under A1. But the Constitution states that "peaceful assembly" is a right - not "rioting."
The circumstances have a huge bearing on how these "rights" are interpreted.
And, like it or not, our Constitution has areas that are vague, and were intentionally left open to interpretation. If it had not been written that way, it might well have NEVER been ratified, as So many parties had opposing interests.
As far as the 2nd Ammendment is concerned , I don't see how you connect that to any "right" to protest.
In any case, these arguments often get long and hairy. I don't have the time , or interest, to pursue this any further with you.
I was simply stating my disagreement with your blanket view of A1 and A2 regarding a "RIGHT" to "protest."
Have a nice day.
I have my copy of the Constitution on my booksheif, about 10 feet away. But hey, thanks.First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 435 U.S. at 798.
then for God's sake take it down and read it.I have my copy of the Constitution on my booksheif, about 10 feet away. But hey, thanks.
I stand by post #9.
which doesnt include committing crimes like burninnjg , looting. murder an d blocking streets.First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 435 U.S. at 798.
yepwhich doesnt include committing crimes like burninnjg , looting. murder an d blocking streets.
to blm doesnt get it. i forgot truspassing too and vandolizing.yep
unlawful assembly
A lot of folks don't get itto blm doesnt get it. i forgot truspassing too and vandolizing.
