Obama could have stopped the militia with an open dialogue

a reply to: diggindirt

The redress of grievances is right there in the first amendment.

What grievances are those?

a reply to: Southern Guardian
No, he needs to direct the proper authorities to redress the petitions presented to them. The Oregon governor needs to do the same and the county judge likewise. The government has an obligation here---written right there in the Constitution. How many times do I have to type it---redress is an action word. A citizen cannot redress his/her own grievances. The citizen's responsibility is to assemble the petition containing the grievances, which requires action of the part of the government entity addressed to provide a remedy or a means to seek a remedy. It can be as simple as, "File suit in court." That would have been a means to a remedy. But simply ignoring the petitions of thousands of people is the same thing that got the US and Great Britain into a war.
Deny Ignorance!

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: diggindirt

The redress of grievances is right there in the first amendment.

What grievances are those?

Any grievance the citizens have with the government. That's the reason there is no list of "acceptable grievances." Did you ever have a civics class?

a reply to: SLAYER69

No. I'm sure it would good for him to hear some of it. But can you imagine how many people you're talking about and how long that would take???

There are probably thousands of crisis lines that are filled all day every day with that. A single president I don't think can field that many calls regardless of how informative they might be.

Many of which wouldn't be very informative either but there's no need to even go there.

a reply to: diggindirt

Not sure I can follow ya on this one buddy.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: onequestion


I think it would have set a bad precedent if obama got involved.

Not that he hasn't stuck his nose into other situations and have them turn out for the better. ya right.

He should have had the FBI go easier and maybe had the press back off the terrorist doom angle.

He certainly had the obligation to direct someone to address the petitions sent to him. Legally. Redress means to provide a remedy or a means to a remedy. Sending in troops is not a legal remedy to abuse of citizens by governmental agencies. That's in the First Amendment.
He has no right to interfere with the press in any way. That's in the First Amendment too.

Words have meaning. Look them up. Redress does not legally include saying in essence, "Shut up and go home."

a reply to: diggindirt

Again I asked you, what grievances are you talking about?

What grievances do these Militiamen have that you feel are being unfairly ignored?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: diggindirt

Not sure I can follow ya on this one buddy.

What is it that you aren't following? The First Amendment right to redress of grievances? Read the history of our country. Read the Declaration of Independence.

www.let.rug.nl...

After the long list of specific grievances by the colonists, we find this paragraph.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

There is the very reason for inclusion of petitions in the First Amendment. The King ignored them or repeated the injury instead of providing redress.

I'd say that is pretty close to what happened to the citizens at the refuge. Their most humble petitions were met with repeated injury via the government using force against them.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: diggindirt

Again I asked you, what grievances are you talking about?

What grievances do these Militiamen have that you feel are being unfairly ignored?

I didn't file the petitions. You will have to go listen to their words when they gave the press conference or find copies of their petitions. Doesn't matter what grievances, they must be redressed by providing a remedy or a means to a remedy. What is it that you don't understand about that?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The right to something means the government can't stand in the way of your exercise of that action.

Where in this case has the government stood in the way of people seeking redress? Or assembly?

They also exercised their right to petition the government for redress of their grievances in the matter of abuse of citizens by federal agencies. They petitioned the county judge, the governor and the president. And got no reply.

They have the right to seek redress, they have no right to get redress.... If you think that they do then show us where that right is in the constitution!

originally posted by: diggindirt
Doesn't matter what grievances, they must be redressed by providing a remedy or a means to a remedy.

So if people seek petition to have planes flying out of a airport stopped, you think the government must do what they want.... or if some people petition to have a convicted mass murderer released, they must be released...

Lol @ having open dialogue with far right extremists and racists.

Some people aren't worth the time of day. Just the cost of a bullet!!!

originally posted by: Leonidas


In what universe does an armed takeover of a Wildlife Refuge count as "peaceably assemble"?

Hyperbole much?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
Doesn't matter what grievances, they must be redressed by providing a remedy or a means to a remedy.

So if people seek petition to have planes flying out of a airport stopped, you think the government must do what they want.... or if some people petition to have a convicted mass murderer released, they must be released...

Please, read what is typed.
They have a right to have their grievances redressed by providing a remedy---stopping the planes, in your example, or telling the citizens to file a suit, including which court they need to use and how to go about finding a remedy to an activity that the government has condoned. While they are not bound to provide the remedy requested by the petitions, they are required to provide a means to a remedy. The means could be a lawsuit against the governing body of the airport. But there must be a reply---an action taken by the government.
Nothing says they must do as the petition asks---the "or" in the definition works too---a means to a remedy. Saying "Shut up and go home" is not a remedy or a means to a remedy, which is exactly what the county judge said to them.

originally posted by: diggindirt
But there must be a reply---an action taken by the government.

The government does take a action....
Nothing says they must do as the petition asks---

Saying "Shut up and go home" is not a remedy or a means to a remedy, which is exactly what the county judge said to them.

It is actually, just a remedy that they do not like!

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Leonidas
Please point out any violence which occurred at the refuge. It was a completely peaceable assembly of citizens. The government agents were the ones perpetrating violence, not those citizens seeking redress of grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

They were armed and entrenched themselves on a federal wildlife refuge stating they would not leave and would fire back if fired upon OR if any law enforcement tried to forcibly remove them...
Violence doesn't need to occur for multiple laws to be broken. The threat of violence was there.

Again, please point out where any violence occurred among the assembled citizens on the refuge. Being armed does not constitute violence. It constitutes practicing one's Second Amendment right. There is no law against practicing the First and Second simultaneously, which is exactly what these folks were doing. Have you never had a civics class?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
But there must be a reply---an action taken by the government.

The government does take a action....
Nothing says they must do as the petition asks---

Saying "Shut up and go home" is not a remedy or a means to a remedy, which is exactly what the county judge said to them.

It is actually, just a remedy that they do not like!

No.
They must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy. What is so difficult to understand? Do you know the definition of "means" ?

means(Opportunity), noun application, capacity, employment, fashion, form, guise, handiness, manner, measures, method, mode, serviceability, style, system, tone, usage, use, ways, wherewithalSee also: access, appliance, channel, conduit, course, determinant, effects, expedient, facility, forum, instrument, instrumentality, livelihood, manner, medium, method, mode, modus operandi, money, opening, organ, process, recourse, reserve, resource, stopgap, substance, system, tool, use, way

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Do you know the definition of "remedy'?

remedy
n. the means to achieve justice in any matter in which legal rights are involved. Remedies may be ordered by the court, granted by judgment after trial or hearing, by agreement (settlement) between the person claiming harm and the person he/she believes has caused it, and by the automatic operation of law. Some remedies require that certain acts be performed or prohibited (originally called "equity"); others involve payment of money to cover loss due to injury or breach of contract; and still others require a court's declaration of the rights of the parties and an order to honor them. An "extraordinary remedy" is a means employed by a judge to meet particular problems, such as appointment of a referee, master or receiver to investigate, report or take charge of property. A "provisional remedy" is a temporary solution to hold matters in status quo pending a final decision or an attempt to see if the remedy will work. Read more: dictionary.law.com...

The path to achieve justice.
Really, these are not big word, or complicated words. They are based on English law as I pointed out above. You should have learned this in 6th or 7th grade civics class.

originally posted by: supremecommander
Lol @ having open dialogue with far right extremists and racists.

Some people aren't worth the time of day. Just the cost of a bullet!!!

Please show me where and when all those people had their Constitutional rights revoked. If their rights can be blatantly violated in this way, so can yours. You should fear the government that can violate rights and brag about it. You could be the next one they decide is worthy of a bullet.

originally posted by: diggindirt
No.
They must provide a remedy or the means to a remedy.

You really have no idea at all. Why are you ignoring

Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight 465 U.S. 271 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court

Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.