Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
You do not trust the police to protect you from crime. That is where the paranoia shows.


The role of protection is quite a newer concept in terms of Law enforcement. A police officer's duties are to enforce the Law and ensure peace. If during such duty they are able to protect someone then by all means -- just as I would hope each and everyone of us would engage in such an act. But this isn't paranoia.

I noticed you decided not to even bother with your contradiction. You say we need the police and only the police to protect us -- then call for personal responsibility.


There is no contradiction. If people have the police busting down their door then it is happening for a reason. Instead of claiming corruption they should accept personal responsibility for what they have done wrong. The fact that some people keep having the police checking on them shows that they have not learned their lesson.

The police do what they have to do to keep law breakers in line. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It would probably be easier to just hold a constitutional convention and rewrite the constitution from scratch. Or maybe not have a constitution altogether. The concept is quite outdated.

Wow. Scary stuff huh? Living in reality is scary stuff. More scary than walking around thinking the government is out to get you?

The government already rules. That is why we have laws. That is why we have police. When some people want to go against that then someone needs to step in and do something about it. That is why police exist.




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
There is no contradiction. If people have the police busting down their door then it is happening for a reason. Instead of claiming corruption they should accept personal responsibility for what they have done wrong. The fact that some people keep having the police checking on them shows that they have not learned their lesson.


I err on the side that most of those in law enforcement are genuinely good people, but know that there are those that abuse their powers. In doing so they utilize the line of thinking that they are doing something good in some cases. That their actions, while not lawful, are to provide for the better good. Such thinking is just as dangerous as those that overstep their authority and power given for nefarious reasons.

It seems you err on the side that police do no harm. That they are all good and if they show up, it must be for a good reason to do so. While in the majority of cases this is true -- you neglect to recognize that some officers could possibly be operating outside their lawful duties.


The police do what they have to do to keep law breakers in line. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


Never argued that fact. But they cannot operate however they wish to keep law breakers (because we are after all, innocent until proven guilty, in the terms of the Law); it seems your presumption is that we are guilty if the police show up. That they haven't a need to have probable cause nor does the State need to show it -- because the police showed up; you must be guilty.


It would probably be easier to just hold a constitutional convention and rewrite the constitution from scratch. Or maybe not have a constitution altogether. The concept is quite outdated.


Imagine the great lengths and time it took to establish our Constitution and you think it would be easy? But out of curiosity -- how do you see the Constitution? Is it a document that defines the structure of Government and limit the political power delegated towards it from the People? Or is it a document that structures the People on what they can and cannot do?

What would you have in its place if we rid our Government of a Constitution? Would we just instill a Monarchy again and have rule by decree? What would define the limits of Government? Should a Government be formed from the People? Does the Individual have political power or are we subjected to those that rule? Would you allow recourse?

Or would your new form of Government be based on how we should act?


Wow. Scary stuff huh? Living in reality is scary stuff. More scary than walking around thinking the government is out to get you?


I do not think the Government is out to get me. But it seems your fear that I question the Government on some of their actions. Why is that?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom28804
Ok maybe I am missing something but I looked this bill up and the only thing it is referring to is trespassing on federal property. Nothing major there.


I know.

With constant and continued threats of another major bombing - - - seems to make a whole lotta sense to me to disallow trespassing on possible major targets.

No one is stopping protesting that I can see.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I think we got it narrowed down with the removal of two clauses: Jurisdiction and Supremacy.

This line of discussion does warrant a deeper look. Why would they remove the jurisdiction from the Attorney General of the United States and remove the clause that specifically stated that this section didn't supersede existing laws of the United States and the Several States?

I believe that is where the rational discussion has moved to.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
99 rights on the law, 99 rights on the law.

Take one down, pass it around, 98 rights on the law.

Sorry, that's all I got today.
edit on 11-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Annee
 


I think we got it narrowed down with the removal of two clauses: Jurisdiction and Supremacy.

This line of discussion does warrant a deeper look. Why would they remove the jurisdiction from the Attorney General of the United States and remove the clause that specifically stated that this section didn't supersede existing laws of the United States and the Several States?

I believe that is where the rational discussion has moved to.


Fair enough.

I do actually believe that MJ12 and the PNAC are real. Jumping on everything with "Emotional Conspiracy" - - makes it more difficult to have a rational discussion.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Looks like others have taken notice of this as well (after ATS, I see): link

They've not only removed our two clauses, but the part I missed was the removal of "willfully" in some of the subsections, which presents its own set of further ambiguities. Just like they like it.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Looks like others have taken notice of this as well (after ATS, I see): link

They've not only removed our two clauses, but the part I missed was the removal of "willfully" in some of the subsections, which presents its own set of further ambiguities. Just like they like it.


Indeed but the sensational will drown out the rational. There are real questions to ask and seek answer for, but because people want to paint this bill as a certain way, those rational questions get drowned out.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


The constitution interferes with government authority and helps criminals get away with their crimes. Government is supposed to be in charge.

There really should never have been a constitution to begin with, but unfortunately we must deal with it now. If the constitution were eliminated then there would not be so much fighting among the people and we would all go along with the authorities more easily. People would not be so paranoid if they weren't always fearing the government is after them. There would be a lot less mental illness and people would be happier.

There is no need to question the government. The government knows what it is doing. Instead you should be examining where you are at fault and not blame others for things.

I had government in school and the instructor liked to point out how outdated the constitution is with reality, and he had a lot of good points. He was a very smart man. He pointed out that no one needs a gun anymore. If something happens then just call the cops. If people focused less on selfish things like their own rights and focused instead on society as a whole and on getting along then we would all be happier people. People are unhappy because they have unmet selfish desires. Remove the selfish desire and you remove the source of unhappiness. Focus less on self and instead focus on the world. And the constitution is a source of great selfishness.

The world would be a better place without so many unhappy, mentally ill people.

Anyone who sits or stands, blocking others from passing, over some issue is clearly not right in the head. There needs to be more bills like this so that regular people are not being harassed.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lady_mezuza
 


Never should have had a constitution, eh? Lulz.....




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
The constitution interferes with government authority and helps criminals get away with their crimes. Government is supposed to be in charge.


Okay -- we are drifting off track but this is important to me.

Should Government have absolute authority over the citizens? Where does political power derive from? Government or the Individual?

There is much more of your last post I want to discuss, but let us focus the conversation first to your core beliefs.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
The constitution interferes with government authority and helps criminals get away with their crimes. Government is supposed to be in charge.


Okay -- we are drifting off track but this is important to me.

Should Government have absolute authority over the citizens? Where does political power derive from? Government or the Individual?

There is much more of your last post I want to discuss, but let us focus the conversation first to your core beliefs.


I want to join the two of you in this discussion.

lady_mezuza - - - I would love if you made your post a separate thread.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza

Originally posted by ownbestenemy



The police do what they have to do to keep law breakers in line. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The government already rules. That is why we have laws. That is why we have police. When some people want to go against that then someone needs to step in and do something about it. That is why police exist.


So what are parking violations and speeding tickets for? Not for serving the public trust, but for collection more money from people. Wasn't being taxed enough for them? Apparently not. Because of confiscatory laws, probably against the constitution, Cops more and more are not protecting and serving the people, but acting like a gang. A government sanctioned gang. I was under the impression that if one had a highly visible job dealing with the public, they would set a sterling example to the people they served. Consider cops and sheriffs being the worst speeders that get off due to 'professional courtesy'....doesn't the law apply to them as well?!?

The govt is suppose to be of the people, by the people and for the people yet people feel disenfranchised because of the blatant growth and power grabs the government perpetuates AGAINST the rights of the people. Like this bill. Like the patriot act. Like going to war without a declaration of war. Like bad foreign policy that infringes on other countries' sovereignty. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.
edit on 18-3-2012 by dagon because: Take response out of quotes.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
You have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to protest on private property.

And I'd bet this bill came about because of the stupid OWS movement

Protesting is fine, but you don't have the right to be disruptive..You don't have the right to camp out on other people's, including government, property.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


HR 347 does not prevent protests.

HR 347 applies a federal statute to federal buildings in terms of tresspassing, as local and state laws apply to local and state buildings / property.

Protesting is valid and legal.

Rioting, destroying private and public property, blocking public roadways preventing citizens who are NOT protesting from using those roads / avenues / etc, are illegal as they do not fall under protesting.

People need to learn the difference between what protesting is, and what it is not.

Unless law enforcement has a specific agreement with a private property holder, they cannot enforce tresspassing laws, as the police are not responsible for the property. To get around that, businesses sign agreements of enforcement, allowing the police to enforce no tresspassing on private property absent property owners presence.

If you want to get technical cases can be made for burglary,. which is a felony, instead of trresspassing. Forcibly entering premises that do not belong to you. HR 347 is Federal, since local and state authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, and federal officers are not empowered to enforce state local law.

As the bill/law is worded, it absolutely can restrict protesting (or free speech) anywhere, federal, public, or private property - anywhere a "VIP" under the protection of the Secret Service happens to be.

From the summary of the law:

Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
H.R.347



Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

It's No. 2 that is so vague - "a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" - does that mean if Rick Santorum drops in on your local diner where you happen to be eating, and you start to protest, are you know "trespassing"?



reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to protest on private property.

And I'd bet this bill came about because of the stupid OWS movement

Protesting is fine, but you don't have the right to be disruptive..You don't have the right to camp out on other people's, including government, property.

Could just as easily have been the "stupid" Tea Party movement. This bill would make it illegal to protest whether it's on government, private, or public property. It literally allows them to create a mobile exclusion zone around a VIP, anyone designated by the SS for protection. If that person happens to be walking down the sidewalk, anyone who organizes a protest within that 'exclusion zone' is trespassing.


 

Again the sponsor and co-sponsor of this act are:
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16]
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19]

Be sure to send them your love, before that becomes illegal, too.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
As the bill/law is worded, it absolutely can restrict protesting (or free speech) anywhere, federal, public, or private property - anywhere a "VIP" under the protection of the Secret Service happens to be.


It isn't that vague if you actually follow the referenced code that the bill refers to.

Title 18, Section 3056 is the guidelines in which someone would be determined under the protection of the Secret Service. Though, the public law does authorize the President to determine a person under the protection of the SS if they so deem so.

The last portion is, and I admit, a bit vague, but the declaration of those warranted protection would fall under scrutiny (albeit a very anemic press and Congressional leaders).



It's No. 2 that is so vague - "a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" - does that mean if Rick Santorum drops in on your local diner where you happen to be eating, and you start to protest, are you know "trespassing"?


No. Not unless the President has issued a memorandum or Rick Santuorum falls under the 120 days clause and passed all checks of Section 3056.




This bill would make it illegal to protest whether it's on government, private, or public property. It literally allows them to create a mobile exclusion zone around a VIP, anyone designated by the SS for protection. If that person happens to be walking down the sidewalk, anyone who organizes a protest within that 'exclusion zone' is trespassing.


I understand that the potential is there, but that isn't what the law states. One, a person organizing a protest would have to impede that person (which could easily fall under a more local statute such as disturbing the peace), or cause bodily harm. Further, I would love to see a Federal prosecutor explain to a judge that a person merely walking down the street is under official Government business or function. Though I know there are some judges that would see it as such, such a ruling would be ran up the chain to the Supreme Court in a heartbeat.

Given the rash of decision in favor of the People, I would take that case any day as a win.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

H.R. 347 The No Trespass Bill aka Anti 1st Amendment Law.

Pretty specific violation of the First Amendment Rights when dissected!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
And I'd bet this bill came about because of the stupid OWS movement


I'll bet you didn't check when the original code it's amending was passed before you made that ridiculous statement. This is an amendment to a nearly identical law passed in 2009, long before OWS. Not, however, before the Tea Party.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Great stuff, star for you! Sad that it takes a talking head on the moving picture box to get people to pay attention, but maybe now they will. All that reading gets in the way of caring, I guess.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Just like the Martial Law he just passed Obama must plan to use these new laws in some way. It makes no sense why you would change the Constitution to such a degree unless you had plan to use the new laws. What will happen is now Tea Party Events will now break the law. Republican Events will break the law. It just won't make protest illegal it makes any gathering in public illegal. Thats the NWO for you.





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join