Federal judge enjoins state from enforcing curfew against Occupy group

[The Rabbi]

Isnt that special?

Aren't you special? Like riding the short bus. He asked me for my opinion, and I gave it to him. You have a problem with that?

Your opinion as to what constitutes a valid protest is pretty ******* worthless.
Actually all of your opinions are pretty ******* worthless, but that's another issue.

 

[Oddball]

OK...So my opening up a bar and grill with no liquor license, no tax license, no health inspections, refusing to pay property taxes and allowing smoking is an equally valid form of protest, and you should have no right to shut me down and take my property.

Simply calling it a protest does not make it one. Especially in your solitude. However, assuming that liquor license requirements were a "hot button" issue in your locality, as well as smoking laws, and health inspections, if you wanted to organize a protest day for several shops to open up for business on a given day and allow indoor smoking without the requisite licenses, etc, then I would consider that a valid form of protest.

There you have it.

By that completely ad hoc standard, squatting and monopolization of the public square for weeks on end doesn't make it a protest either.

 

[Mr.Nick]

As a libertarian I believe in the Tenth Amendment, which grants power to the state.

That's where you're wrong. It reserves power to the states. It doesn't grant them any power they did not have before.

If they want to go home and return to protest - that is fine - but pitching tents and living in a public - NO.

People have the right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. There is no requirement that such assembly be limited in time or size.



Only because you want to restrict people's rights to protest.

Assemble does not mean LIVE IN A PARK..... You have the right to peacefully assemble and state your grievances. Where the **** does it say you have the right to occupy land???

Where does it say that assembly is limited to what you find convenient?

not to mention private property...

So government property is private property now? Wing nut.

"It reserves power to the states. It doesn't grant them any power they did not have before."

That makes no sense - its almost an oxymoron...

The Tenth Amendment grants the states the right to self legislate....

People don't have the right to OCCUPY ANYTHING but their own dwellings...

Using your logic I could occupy your home and call it a protest and that would be OK and it would be no different legally than OWS occupying a privately owned park...

OWS has the right to protest NOT THE RIGHT TO OCCUPY....

 

[Ravi]

Baloney.

The squatters shouldn't be exempted from any local gathering, camping, vagrancy, sanitation, food service, etcetera laws that every other citizen and group of citizens is expected to comply with.

But they're a bunch of socialist know-nothings, so they get a pass.

And what laws are they being exempted from? And on what basis do you conclude they are a bunch of socialist know-nothings? And on what basis do you conclude that it is the reason they are getting a "pass"? In fact, what do you known at all about the matter? You seem to have more ignorant propaganda than you do knowledge.

He thinks only property owners deserve rights.

 

[8537]

Oh **** off - its the same thing...

Its only an "idiotic argument" to you because you're ******* delusional and believe the Bill of Rights only applies to your stupid ******* voice...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Where the **** does it say I need a goddamn permit to carry a weapon???

There was no constitutional amendment or addendum that asserts one needs a permit to carry weaponry.. Some states have STATE LAWS that require permits, and most communities have laws that require a permit to occupy a piece of public land to protest.

As a matter of fact your hommies the Nazi Party (which are down there at OWS supporting your movement) were denied a permit to protest back in 1978 in Skokie Illinois...

Admit it you're just a partisan hack. The only reason you say the shit you say is because you disagree with it.

You are only confirming this more by attempting to label me with some negative connotation of some party you believe I associate with myself.

In reality you are so far from fact it's funny.

You're the one saying your boys don't need a permit to protest but at the same time I need a permit to carry my pistol...

Then take up that issue with your state or pick up and move to a state where no permit is required.

 

[Ravi]

The right to assemble is not absolute. Nor does it convey the right to LIVE on government property. The right to assemble does not grant the right to impede other citizens movements EXCEPT where a valid permit has been issued with a stated area , time and location specified.

The right of an individual to protest does NOT grant them the right to deny other citizens the RIGHT to use Government property.

One is not protesting while sleeping.

The right to protest the government is held in the highest esteem and is given among the greatest of leeway. Sleeping, in fact, can be a form of protest. The WBC often says things in their protests that would otherwise be considered harassment. But the courts have continued to uphold their behavior as constitutionally protected protest because those things said are addressing matters that are of public interest, even if their particular views and chosen locations are generally considered repugnant by most of the populace.

Considering the nature of the Occupy protests regards people's abilities to provide a living for themselves (to include a place live and sleep, and the conditions thereof) and how the actions of government have an effect on those things, their assembly, to include living in tents and sleeping, is a valid form of protest.

OK...So my opening up a bar and grill with no liquor license, no tax license, no health inspections, refusing to pay property taxes and allowing smoking is an equally valid form of protest, and you should have no right to shut me down and take my property.

Anarchist schmuck.

You're the one that argues that you have the right to do those things.

And yet if anyone has an opinion other than yours, you want the government to curtail their rights.

What a hypocrite.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Translation: The laws upon which this country were founded trump state law.

Really??

I remember something called the Tenth Amendment.

Not to mention the ******* leftists fight freedom of speech and expression when THEY don't agree with it left and right - not to mention the Second Amendment which they fight tooth and nail...

Once again the Bill of Rights is only applicable when a ***** liberal has something to say, however when the right as something to say it's "hate speech" or if an individual wants to conceal and carry its wrong....

I mean according to this bullshit a 10-year-old has the "right" to protest at 3AM....

your retard is showing.

Once again you add no substance other than "you're a retard."

I would love to see you write a dissertation...

"that's retarded, that's retarded, that's retarded,that's retarded, that's retarded, that's retarded,that's retarded, that's retarded, that's retarded,that's retarded, that's retarded, that's retarded,that's retarded, that's retarded, that's retarded, he was retarded."

Do you know the definition of retarded?

Not to mention you're a progressive - isn't "retard" not politically correct?

I thought it was "mentally challenged?"

 

[Inthemiddle]

But just for a day?????????????

No, not necessarily. But I'm responding to hypotheticals with hypotheticals, mkay?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Isnt that special?

Aren't you special? Like riding the short bus. He asked me for my opinion, and I gave it to him. You have a problem with that?

Your opinion as to what constitutes a valid protest is pretty ******* worthless.
Actually all of your opinions are pretty ******* worthless, but that's another issue.

Then get out and stop complaining, you damned troll.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Admit it you're just a partisan hack. The only reason you say the shit you say is because you disagree with it.

You are only confirming this more by attempting to label me with some negative connotation of some party you believe I associate with myself.

In reality you are so far from fact it's funny.

You're the one saying your boys don't need a permit to protest but at the same time I need a permit to carry my pistol...

Then take up that issue with your state or pick up and move to a state where no permit is required.

I don't care either way, I carry my pistol anyways...

I'd love to get the hell out of this state - I have too much family and too much invested here tho..

I wish I could move down to Texas...

 

[Dragon]

As a libertarian I believe in the Tenth Amendment, which grants power to the state.

Sorry, if the state says you cant live in a park YOU CANT LIVE IN THE PARK...

Marxism, the New Left, and now the Bill of Rights -- we're developing a pretty long list of things you think you know about, but of which you clearly know a lot less than you think.

Here's the 10th Amendment full quoted. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the words you seem not to understand are in there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Please note the bolded section. The tenth amendment DOES NOT, as you seem to believe, make the states supreme over the federal government or the Constitution. In fact, it does the exact opposite. If a power is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, then that is not a power which is reserved to the States.

Thus, the States cannot coin money, because that is a power delegated to the federal government and explicitly forbidden to the states. The states cannot make treaties, or maintain armies or navies, or go to war independently. And with the 14th Amendment and the incorporation by it of the Bill of Rights to bind state governments, neither can states pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That makes no sense - its almost an oxymoron...

It makes perfect sense to those knowledgeable. You're just probably ignorant of the matter.

The 10th amendment reserved to the states all powers they were understood to have prior to the adoption of the constitution, which the constitution did not specifically redirect toward the federal government. Prior to the constitution the states each had a variety of powers, and the adoption of the constitution was not meant to strip the states down to the floor and rebuild them. The adoption of the constitution did not create a new nation, nor did it create new states. It created a new structure of government and nothing more.

The oft repeated argument that the 10th amendment grants to the states any power whatsoever is completely unfounded and is contradictory to long established understandings of the effect of the constitution and to long established case law. For example, state efforts to create additional qualifications for federal offices have been held unconstitutional when defended by invoking the 10th amendment. Since the federal government did not exist prior to the adoption of the constitution, it is impossible that under the 10th amendment the states could reserve a power to establish qualifications for federal offices, because they never possesses such a power, and the states cannot reserve that which they never had.

I realize that all of this may not jive very well with your personal desires and how you want the constitution to be viewed, but your objections are in vain.

The Tenth Amendment grants the states the right to self legislate.

No, it reserves to the states those powers it help prior to the constitution being adopted. Individual state constitutions grant their respective states the power to legislate laws.

People don't have the right to OCCUPY ANYTHING but their own dwellings...

People have the right to assemble to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Using your logic I could occupy your home and call it a protest and that would be OK and it would be no different legally than OWS occupying a privately owned park.

No, that is your attempt to twist the arguments in a way that would make it easier for your own to be accepted, without you having to actually support your arguments.

If you came into my home, you would not constitute an assembly, and you would be invading my private property. That is not anywhere near comparable to a group of people assembling on public property.

OWS has the right to protest NOT THE RIGHT TO OCCUPY....

They have the right to assemble. Calling their assembly an "occupation" is nothing but word games. All you ever have is word games, so I guess I should expect the same now. But let's move on and let the adults actually debate ideas, instead of playing with your crossword puzzles, mkay?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Once again, the 1st Amendment does NOT grant the right to LIVE on Government property, nor the right to deny other citizens the use of Government property, nor the right to impede the comes and goings of other citizens.

Yep.... They may as well start building a house in a park.. I mean what's the difference?

I'd arrest all of them because they're breaking a slew of laws... I'm a libertarian to boot and fully support the First Amendment, however this has gone far enough...

you are a libertarian like i am a Astronaut....

You don't even know what classical liberalism is dummy..

Yeah, don't confuse libertarian philosophy with anarchy...

 

[Mr.Nick]

As a libertarian I believe in the Tenth Amendment, which grants power to the state.

Sorry, if the state says you cant live in a park YOU CANT LIVE IN THE PARK...

Marxism, the New Left, and now the Bill of Rights -- we're developing a pretty long list of things you think you know about, but of which you clearly know a lot less than you think.

Here's the 10th Amendment full quoted. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the words you seem not to understand are in there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Please note the bolded section. The tenth amendment DOES NOT, as you seem to believe, make the states supreme over the federal government or the Constitution. In fact, it does the exact opposite. If a power is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, then that is not a power which is reserved to the States.

Thus, the States cannot coin money, because that is a power delegated to the federal government and explicitly forbidden to the states. The states cannot make treaties, or maintain armies or navies, or go to war independently. And with the 14th Amendment and the incorporation by it of the Bill of Rights to bind state governments, neither can states pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights.

I never claimed the states could trump the Bill of Rights..

I said people CANT LIVE IN A PARK...

Do you not understand that???

I've said it several times, I also said some municipalities require a permit to use public land to protest...

These fools aren't protesters when they're living in parks - they're squatters.

Lets also not forget they're protesting on private property - which is TRESPASSING..

Oh and don't even attempt to try to spew what you think you know about the Tenth Amendment...

There is NOTHING in the constitution that says people have the RIGHT to squat on public land - States have legislated laws that forbid squatting and impeding - hence the squatting and impeding is ILLEGAL...

It's YOUR rationalization that they are protesting when they aren't...

a) they're living on public land
b) they're preventing others from using that land
c) they're destroying property owned by the state and private businesses
d) they're occupying private property

I could go on forever...

 

[Oddball]

Baloney.

The squatters shouldn't be exempted from any local gathering, camping, vagrancy, sanitation, food service, etcetera laws that every other citizen and group of citizens is expected to comply with.

But they're a bunch of socialist know-nothings, so they get a pass.

And what laws are they being exempted from? And on what basis do you conclude they are a bunch of socialist know-nothings? And on what basis do you conclude that it is the reason they are getting a "pass"? In fact, what do you known at all about the matter? You seem to have more ignorant propaganda than you do knowledge.

Let's see...They've been exempted, by judicial fiat, from the park curfew law.
They've also flouted laws against squatting, camping, sanitation, food service, public masturbation and other sex acts, public drunkenness, just for starters....From which they're getting a total free pass.

And I call them a bunch of socialistic know-nothings on the basis of the coverage that they've received from the mainstream media....And they have very adequately lived down to the very adequate description.

If anyone here is being willingly ignorant, it's you, Buckwheat.

 

[Oddball]

As a libertarian I believe in the Tenth Amendment, which grants power to the state.

Sorry, if the state says you cant live in a park YOU CANT LIVE IN THE PARK...

Marxism, the New Left, and now the Bill of Rights -- we're developing a pretty long list of things you think you know about, but of which you clearly know a lot less than you think.

Here's the 10th Amendment full quoted. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the words you seem not to understand are in there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Please note the bolded section. The tenth amendment DOES NOT, as you seem to believe, make the states supreme over the federal government or the Constitution. In fact, it does the exact opposite. If a power is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, then that is not a power which is reserved to the States.

Thus, the States cannot coin money, because that is a power delegated to the federal government and explicitly forbidden to the states. The states cannot make treaties, or maintain armies or navies, or go to war independently. And with the 14th Amendment and the incorporation by it of the Bill of Rights to bind state governments, neither can states pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights.

I never claimed the states could trump the Bill of Rights..

I said people CANT LIVE IN A PARK...

Do you not understand that???

I've said it several times, I also said some municipalities require a permit to use public land to protest...

Shit, they require all sorts of permits to have a damned VFW picnic.

But let a bunch of dope smoking, patchouli-oiled, know-it-all college boy cryasses want to set up a hippie commune in the parks, the rest of the world had better just shut up and get the **** out of the way.

 

[Ravi]

Baloney.

The squatters shouldn't be exempted from any local gathering, camping, vagrancy, sanitation, food service, etcetera laws that every other citizen and group of citizens is expected to comply with.

But they're a bunch of socialist know-nothings, so they get a pass.

And what laws are they being exempted from? And on what basis do you conclude they are a bunch of socialist know-nothings? And on what basis do you conclude that it is the reason they are getting a "pass"? In fact, what do you known at all about the matter? You seem to have more ignorant propaganda than you do knowledge.

Let's see...They've been exempted, by judicial fiat, from the park curfew law.
They've also flouted laws against squatting, camping, sanitation, food service, public masturbation and other sex acts, public drunkenness, just for starters....From which they're getting a total free pass.

And I call them a bunch of socialistic know-nothings on the basis of the coverage that they've received from the mainstream media....And they have very adequately lived down to the very adequate description.

If anyone here is being willingly ignorant, it's you, Buckwheat.

The park curfew law was put in place specifically to use against the OWS crowd. A judge ruled otherwise.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I never claimed the states could trump the Bill of Rights..

I said people CANT LIVE IN A PARK...

So, you're saying that state laws can create limits on how a person can exercise their constitutional rights to assemble and protest?

These fools aren't protesters when they're living in parks - they're squatters.

Says you.

Lets also not forget they're protesting on private property - which is TRESPASSING..

Since when was government property private property?

Oh and don't even attempt to try to spew what you think you know about the Tenth Amendment...

I could say the same to you. All you have is your ramblings, which are counter to what the courts have long held.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that says people have the RIGHT to squat on public land - States have legislated laws that forbid squatting and impeding - hence the squatting and impeding is ILLEGAL.

They're assembling in protest of the government.

It's YOUR rationalization that they are protesting when they aren't.

Actually, it's YOU who are rationalizing that they aren't protesting when they are. You seem to think that you have some kind of magical power to judge whether they are protesting. Even the state conceded that what it did violated the constitution.

a) they're living on public land

Wait, you said it was private land. I guess all your earlier arguments about private land have to get tossed out.

b) they're preventing others from using that land

Evidence.

c) they're destroying property owned by the state and private businesses

Evidence.

d) they're occupying private property

You're going back into my sig for this one.

I could go on forever...

I'm sure you could. But repeating stupidities forever won't change the fact that they are stupidities.

 

[Oddball]

The park curfew law was put in place specifically to use against the OWS crowd. A judge ruled otherwise.

So what if it was?

Liberoidal moonbats like you don't seem to have a problem with such things when it applies to people with whom you disagree.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Marxism, the New Left, and now the Bill of Rights -- we're developing a pretty long list of things you think you know about, but of which you clearly know a lot less than you think.

Here's the 10th Amendment full quoted. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the words you seem not to understand are in there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Please note the bolded section. The tenth amendment DOES NOT, as you seem to believe, make the states supreme over the federal government or the Constitution. In fact, it does the exact opposite. If a power is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, then that is not a power which is reserved to the States.

Thus, the States cannot coin money, because that is a power delegated to the federal government and explicitly forbidden to the states. The states cannot make treaties, or maintain armies or navies, or go to war independently. And with the 14th Amendment and the incorporation by it of the Bill of Rights to bind state governments, neither can states pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights.

I never claimed the states could trump the Bill of Rights..

I said people CANT LIVE IN A PARK...

Do you not understand that???

I've said it several times, I also said some municipalities require a permit to use public land to protest...

Shit, they require all sorts of permits to have a damned VFW picnic.

But let a bunch of dope smoking, patchouli-oiled, know-it-all college boy cryasses want to set up a hippie commune in the parks, the rest of the world had better just shut up and get the **** out of the way.

I think its funny they're hiding behind the Bill of Rights when they attempt to destroy the document 90% of the time.

Like I have been saying for years - progressives only embrace the Bill of Rights when its convenient for them - when it could possibly protect them..

These are the same motherfuckers that scream "hate speech" and want to ban guns - **** them..

They're all two-faced *****..