Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Logical conclusion is that the state can make such laws? What the hell!!?? They do not have a right to take away others rights. Nobody has that right. Do you think that it is right that they want to stop the public from voicing their opinion from assembly? Are you happy to give over your rights to people who would do something like that?

You really don't think that the state has the authority to tell us that we can't camp out in a public park, just because we say we have the right to assemble? You think it should be okay? If I want to pitch a tent on the highway and call it a protest, I should be able to do that?

I am saying that it is completely logical that the states can make laws such as these.

The state CAN make a law that you cant camp in a park. And an individual should not be allowed to camp in the park for recreation. But when a state uses this law to disband a peaceful protest, it has crossed the line into unconstitutional, because it has interfered with the rights given to me in the Bill of Rights, as this supercedes local law. Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, because you were programmed that way. Sorry.

Dear aching_knuckles,

I think I am on the verge of completely agreeing with your post.

No, I am saying that at critical times throughout history, "the powers that be" have certainly affected Supreme and Federal Court decisions to the detriment of the common man. I am not saying the Supreme Court IS TPTB, merely one of their tools. I dont know about a revolution to overthrow the SCOTUS, but some things need some serious re-analyzation.

Ok, I can go along with that. It's a little stronger than I would have phrased it, but it looks all right, generally. I also agree that at times the common man has been hurt by Supreme Court decisions.

I think my position is that, even if they screw them up, the Court has been given the power to make the calls, and make them stick. That's how the Court can tell people that the right to protest means the right to protest with reasonable time and place restrictions. May not like it, but we're stuck. Like the ref that makes a bad call in a game.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

I think my position is that, even if they screw them up, the Court has been given the power to make the calls, and make them stick. That's how the Court can tell people that the right to protest means the right to protest with reasonable time and place restrictions. May not like it, but we're stuck. Like the ref that makes a bad call in a game.

With respect,
Charles1952

Well, the difference between us and football players is that football players are taught by their coach to listen to the ref....Our Coach, our Founding Fathers said "You guys have the right to tell the ref he is wrong!" but it seems like a lot of players on the team want to give away that right and just keep playing the game....

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Quote the Law that states Protesters have the right to protest indefinitely on either Private or Public property?

They exercised their right to free speech. [For Months on end] They exercised their right to assemble peacefully. [They really stretched that one but ok]

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Quote the Law that states Protesters have the right to protest indefinitely on either Private or Public property?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Quote the Law that states Protesters have the right

Do you see where you are already wrong? Laws dont give anyone rights.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


We'll just have to agree to disagree, because we are clearly not going to budge---either of us.

I have always been a questioner, so it rankles that you call me "programmed". I'd say I am far from that.

In our debate here, I have based my opinions on the analysis of the facts as I see them. I still think I am interpreting the Constitutional issues correctly. The fact that the courts agree with my interpretation strengthens my argument, in my opinion. But I have not made up my mind based upon what the courts have said...my opinion is based strictly upon my reading of the actual wording of the Constitution.

I genuinely believe that the Constitution gives a LOT of power to the states, and the Federal government has greatly overstepped its bounds in all areas of our lives. I also think that we are so far away from what the founders envisioned, that they would be sick about it.

The constitution allows for the interpretation of rights, in many instances. How they are view probably depends on the climate of the country and who is on the bench.

reply to post by aching_knuckles



Exactly, No laws now...

Show anywhere in the Bill of Rights where it is written that they have the right to protest indefinitely on either Public or Private Property.

Please.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Why do you go to great legnths to protect the US govt? Are you getting a salary or allowance from the state?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

I genuinely believe that the Constitution gives a LOT of power to the states, and the Federal government has greatly overstepped its bounds in all areas of our lives. I also think that we are so far away from what the founders envisioned, that they would be sick about it.

Ok, so maybe i got you wrong, and you're just arguing the scemantics of the legal side of law making. But in the paragraph I quoted, what would you propose the people do about it? If you say that the law makers have the right to take away your right to assemble, then how will you ever change an inherrently corrupt system run by insane lunatics? You can't just vote someone else in, as the main parties worth voting for, are just different faces of the same coin. So you're replacing one corupt system with another. The whole system needs to come down, it's rotten to the very core. How would you go about changing something so hopelessly lost in greed?

Originally posted by TheOracle
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Why do you go to great legnths to protect the US govt? Are you getting a salary or allowance from the state?

Hey now, the one of the biggest contributors to the OWS is the government, if it wasn't for their backward ways, where would the OWSer's be?

Dear aching_knuckles,

Of course we have the right to tell the Supreme Court that they're wrong, we do it all the time. But until our system is overthrown or fundamentally altered, they are the ones who make the constitutionality decisions, not me, not you. Right now, under the system we have, states and cities have a constitutional right to put some restrictions on speech and protest.

We can change it by electing a President who will put in a different kind of Justice, passing a Constitutional Amendment, or one or two other, subtler tricks. But right now, the states and cities have the right to restrict protests.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear aching_knuckles,

Of course we have the right to tell the Supreme Court that they're wrong, we do it all the time. But until our system is overthrown or fundamentally altered, they are the ones who make the constitutionality decisions, not me, not you. Right now, under the system we have, states and cities have a constitutional right to put some restrictions on speech and protest.

We can change it by electing a President who will put in a different kind of Justice, passing a Constitutional Amendment, or one or two other, subtler tricks. But right now, the states and cities have the right to restrict protests.

With respect,
Charles1952

How can you over throw a system by abiding by its laws?

Hello pot, meet kettle.

Dear Acidtastic,

How can you over throw a system by abiding by its laws?

It depends. (That, by the way is my all-time favorite answer.) Are you talking about the legal system or the entire governmental-economic system? If you want to throw everything into the "ash-heap of history," I'm afraid I can't help you. It's not a project that I want to be involved in.

Or perhaps you're simply saying that we can't have any real change without mass civil disobedience or violence. Maybe you're right. I don't know. But my personal preference is to work within the laws as they exist. They have a meaning for me that I won't be able to explain.

We can change it by electing a President who will put in a different kind of Justice, passing a Constitutional Amendment, or one or two other, subtler tricks.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by TheOracle
Why do you go to great legnths to protect the US govt? Are you getting a salary or allowance from the state?

Yes...

But no dental plan and only two weeks paid vacation.
It's a rough job.

I appreciate your obsessive fascination with me though.

I'm flattered.

Ok, so maybe i got you wrong, and you're just arguing the scemantics of the legal side of law making. But in the paragraph I quoted, what would you propose the people do about it? If you say that the law makers have the right to take away your right to assemble, then how will you ever change an inherrently corrupt system run by insane lunatics? You can't just vote someone else in, as the main parties worth voting for, are just different faces of the same coin. So you're replacing one corupt system with another. The whole system needs to come down, it's rotten to the very core. How would you go about changing something so hopelessly lost in greed?

reply to post by Acidtastic


Now you get where I'm coming from..... :-) I think the Constitution ALWAYS comes down to semantics.

I think some of you have given up on our current system too easily. Instead of bringing down the system, we need to replace the corruption that is there with honest people. I don't think we need to bring down the system, we just need to get rid of the corrupt from within it.

Unfortunately, I don't know HOW to FIND these honest people to elect....I'm as frustrated as everyone else about that.

Occupy is not about overthrowing our government. Occupy mostly seeks to end the corruption that has broken our system.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Exactly, No laws now...

Show anywhere in the Bill of Rights where it is written that they have the right to protest indefinitely on either Public or Private Property.

Please.

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.

However I do believe that once you begin destroying property you are no longer being "peaceful" .. OWS caused millions in damages to cities across the country, and therefore, imo, is not peaceful. But there is no outline of time in the Bill of Rights stating that a protest is to be within any timeframe. Only that it has to be peaceful.

reply to post by Kali74


Occupy is about a free lunch.