a cavaet... i'm not an attorney.... but i have stayed in a best western hotel... so ymmv... Without any laws we will fall to anarchy...something our constitution was designed to prevent... It's not the goverment making the laws but the social morays of the people ... Common law dictates certian basic legal protections... without which murder, rape, arson,theft etc would be rampant. It's when these laws become are expanded into areas that are not basic common law that folks get upset...
Have you read any of my posts? Do you have any idea what the 1st Amendment says? What about the first 3 Articles? If you have, indeed, fully read and studied these, you would know where the authority is derived and as Witch Doctor indicated- the power still sits with the people. Those judges making those decisions were given the authority to do so by the Founders (read Article 3). I think they did a pretty darned good job considering the complexity of such an issue. This DOES NOT criminalize expression. From the SC decision: ^ What this is saying is that you cannot intrude on others in order to express yourself. Other people have Constitutional, inalienable rights too, but you would be denying the majority of people's rights for the convenient expression of one. Given that circumstance, a slightly inconvenient, but easily obtainable permit seems logical and it is Constitutional (its not a denying of expression, it is a scheduling of expression, if you will). Based upon YOUR definition of "criminalizing expression", the Westboro Baptist Church can stand and shout obscenities and protest you or I being killed because of the Army's stance on homosexuality. Do you want that for YOUR family? I sure as hell don't. The Founders never meant free to express yourself, even at the discomfort and intrusion to others.
Judges don't make laws. They enforce them. It's when they step over their bounds and "make new ones" that we fall into this hell hole. Moving on.. I don't know where our disconnect is, but it's seemingly like you don't understand the finer points of the balancing act of expressing one's rights. NONE, I repeat, NONE of my posts would EVER suggest that the baptist church goers could willfully infringe upon the rights of the mourners without accepting the consequences. We both agreed on these contexts many posts back. back to permits. When one has to acquire a permit to "Schedule" their expression of their rights, it is unconstitutional. NO where does the constitution say that our rights could/should be scheduled. We are supposed to use our own judgement here on when it's appropriate to exercise our rights. When that judgement is poorly executed, that's when the REACTS, NEVER SHOULD IT EVER EVER EVER PRE-EMPT that exercise. The ONLY instance of Pre-emption of powers are in the constitution and are clearly targeted at the gov't in the form of restrictions by omission. A permit to own a gun is infringement. A permit to allow one to exercise his rights is infringement on his rights whereas his exercising of those rights was peaceful and did not infringe upon the rights of others to exercise their own rights. Permits are infringement and no one will ever be able to suggest to me otherwise. The law reacts/responds. that's all it's supposed to do. gotta run for a bit..
I guess you have not read the 3rd Article of the US Constitution: Appellate jurisdiction is defined as the jurisdiction to review decisions... which is exactly what the person was doing in the original instance of dancing at the memorial. Meaning THE CITIZEN appealed the decision. The SC did its job. THEY MADE NO LAW. Nor was my remark directed at you. Who was quoted in that post? It was directed at PaxMentis. The point still stands... allowing someone to ruin your solemn experience at the Jefferson Memorial is similar to someone ruining your experience at a funeral. When the funeral stuff came up in another thread, the overwhelming consensus was that if Westboro is infringing on our right to grieve, that it should be regulated *gasp*. A bunch of Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and Independents calling for regulation? Yes. There is a sort of limit to every right... once it encroaches on others' rights. I'd say that you have a right to defend yourself through the 2nd Amendment and the Founders' original intent, but I don't think you have the right go on the offensive and shoot people that look threatening driving down the road. At that point, you are infringing on others' rights. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you can express yourself, even at the discomfort and intrusion of others. So which is greater? Preemption or violation of others? That is the question I proposed Pax-Mentis. This is the reason why we have to have the SC look at rulings. I doubt the Founders envisioned Westboro When they wrote the 1st Amendment. The SC has looked at preemption v. violation of others' rights and decided. The same will likely get decided for Westboro in the near future (there is several state state laws in the works aimed at denying them their protests- I believe Westboro will appeal it and it will go before the same SC). Also on preemption, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 covers regulation pretty well at the end: You may note that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 also contains the Exclusive Legislation Clause: If you don't know what that means, it means that Congress makes the rules for DC, including the Jefferson Memorial. The NPS makes the regulations through authority granted by the appointment by the POTUS and funding from Congress. Indirectly, that authority comes from me and you since we elect our representatives. The other way that Fed Agencies, such as NPS, obtain authority to regulate is through Clause 3 of the same Article and Section. Also known as the Interstate Commerce Clause. Anything that can affect interstate commerce can be regulated under Clause 3. Does random dancing hurt tourism? Can tourism be linked to interstate commerce? I don't know. To my knowledge that hasn't come up before. An educated guess based on past decisions says yes it can be applied. I agree with you 110% on your first point. The 2nd is clear on that. I can't agree with your second point because the only way to ensure: is to have a permit style system so the general public knows that you cannot get into the Jefferson Memorial today because 150 people decided to flash mod inside. Anything less WOULD infringe on my right to enjoy the Memorial. I agree with your last point on the "law reacts/responds". That is all the NPS did. They enforced the regulations that were created with the authority of the POTUS, congress (through appropriations), and MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU AND I since they represent us (whether or not you agree, they were elected). The SC simply heard the case on appeal and affirmed the precedent. To not affirm that precedent means that all NPS regulations would be void and hippies would have a free-for-all in my local national park, lumber companies would clear them, and smokey the bear would be poached (Then our right to enjoy these would be at risk too.)
Sometimes when I'm awakened in the middle of the night by a car with super-loud music, I'm reminded that their right to wake me up is protected by the 1st Amendment. I'm tempted to draw their attention with my 223 staccato wind instrument :^)
As was already mentioned in the Kokesh RT videos, the demonstrators KNEW they were going to be arrested by the gestapo beforehand. Their purpose for being there, and the reason they are going back again and again to do the same thing is to raise awareness to the fact that it is unconstitutional for the gestapo to run in and tackle peaceful people who are simply dancing and kissing on public land. All this talk about exercising rights in the "right place" reminds me of the free-speech zones that are set up to restrict peaceful protests. The government sympathizers who claim we need a "permit" to freely exercise our rights on public land are full of ***t. They have no conception of liberty and what rights are, and this is sad. I have had enough of the police and government suck-ups posting around here acting like WE are the problem for standing up for our rights, when it should be painfully clear to ALL that we do, in fact live in a nightmarish police state. We will never give up, and we will never give in to your kind.
That is another good point. Is that person's 1st Amendment right more important than your rights? It's not an easy question to answer. Its not as black and white as some make it. Hence noise ordinances. To set a precedent saying that one person's 1st is more important than your rights, would eliminate all local ordinances against noise. Not a big deal if you live in open desert, but sort of a big deal if you are a suburbanite or urbanite. Love the ordinances or hate them, they are there to protect the majority.
How profound. Since you posted the Oath Keepers discrimination, let me ask you a question- is Oath Keepers for the people that didn't really believe THE OATH when they stated it the first time? I mean, I've said it twice already, and I meant it both times. Police officers have differing oaths, but all swear to use their authority in a manner intended by the law (which would indicate Constitutionality). Here is Oath Keepers oath: Here is the US military enlisted oath: And officer oath: My question is this- What in the Oath Keepers Oath is not covered by the bolded, italicized part of the US military oath? Any Monkeys take THE OATH and not mean it?
Having studied the constitution for many years and spent about half my life in law enforcement, I would be happy to actually discuss this with someone whose attitude did not demonstrate a level of arrogance, nastiness and general resemblence to an equine bodily orifice that would make it impossible to join them in civil discourse. Obviously, that is not you. I have had this discussion many times in my life...obviously my opinion is not one that was universally shared by my colleagues...but I cannot remember one whose intital response was any where near as hostile, nasty and generally dismissive of any opposing opinion. It is obvious that any further discussion with you would lead nowhere except to increased hostility...so I will decline. Have a wonderful day...
If I appeared nasty, I apologize. It wasn't meant to be that way. I probably misunderstood you. It just seemed that you jumped to last post and ignored previous posts that lead to that point. You jumped right into your argument that the decision "criminalized expression" which we had extensive posts prior to that on that very point. And there was no supporting argument in your post. If you have argument on how the SC decision criminalizes expression, I would love to hear it. I would love for you to jump into this one anyways given your background and studies. All friendly here
I don't understand what's gotten into you lately, Al. You are being very rude and hostile, not to mention arrogant and obtuse. To answer your question about oath keepers, you seem to be confused with the difference between the organization and the idea or concept. One can claim to be an "oath keeper" and not be affiliated with the organization. They can mean their oath (police) or military, and it doesn't mean they are affiliated with the "Oath Keepers" organization. Again, you strike out in the common sense department. Sorry.
If you are referring to my attitude towards you, I don't know...I chose to return bad attitude from others in kind. How many discussions have you ended with "fine, be a slave to the secret government". Do you have any idea how old that sh*t gets? It amounts to name calling and is quite pathetic. Common sense how? Common sense tells me THE OATH actually covers everything in the Oath Keeper's Oath, so why should anyone who has taken THE OATH join that organization? The real answer... there is no need. I think it sucks the cop is ostracized btw. Join what you want. I have no idea how we even got here at this point. I am bowing out of this discussion. It seems that Monkeys don't prefer free thinking anything or any kind discussion. They prefer one only agreeing with certain personalities they agree with or with random, unexplained postings on YouTube. There are about 2-3 people that dominate every discussion here and constantly derail it into some mindless drivel about the secret government we are all enslaved to. Ever wonder why we have so many lurkers, but few posters? The funny part is that, in their mind, they are "spreading the message". In reality, they are alienating. The irony being that this whole discussion was on free speech and I get beat up for making a different stance. You guys can commence with agreeing on everything now. Diversity really dilutes a discussion I can't tell the difference in the Tin Foil Hat lounge and the General Discussion sections anymore. I think I will stick to the General Survival Forum... until its overtaken as well. UGRev- I enjoyed it. You are a good sport.
Oh, grown men do cry it seems. here's a clue. DE-PROGRAM. See you when you are worthy, Ulrich. YouTube - Of Rules and Rulers‏
For the record, I hold no ill feelings toward anyone here for their opinion. My statements transcended the context of the dancing issue. I was speaking above and beyond this one case. I do think, however, that this thread has reached the point of no return.
I hold no ill feelings for anybody either. I correct others as I expect to be corrected. If some folks want to disagree with the "conspiracy" crowd, they should know that there will not be agreement all around. Nobody forces others to post; if a subject angers you or pushes your buttons, don't comment. You don't see me trolling the religious forums for this very reason. If it's a post which requires your input, say your peace and try to remain courteous. I like to joke around, never assault people and try to make enemies. Sometimes this is misunderstood, though. I have found that it's nice to take the time to PM a member and get to know them a bit before I fly off the handle. I think this thread died on page 1 anyway. And for the record, I still think Al is wonderful. I honestly would not like it here as much if he up and left. He keeps me balanced, better than Ghrit does.
Federal Oath of Office..... When I was sworn in as a Federal Agent, there were no Federal Agency Officials, senior enough, within 500 miles of my home, so my Agency got a Special Dispensation, for the Admiral, commanding the 17th Coast Guard District, to do the deed. I flew into town, and went up into his office, and presented myself. Very nice fellow, the Admiral. Had his Staff Comms Guy come down to witness, and I took the Oath which is the same one Military Officers take, except they put my Agency Name in Place of the Service Branch Name. He then handed me, my Credentials and Badge, and welcomed me into the Federal Family with a very FIRM handshake. When I reTIRED I gave those back, and after they were "Canceled" they Mailed them back to "Me" for my "Brag Wall" I still feel that that Oath is still in play even if I am reTIRED Now. It is part of my Personal Identity AND Integrity. I do NOT take Oaths lightly, and would NOT take the Oath Keepers Oath, PERIOD. I could NOT do so with a Clear Conscience, and therefor would NEVER Take such an Oath. That is just how "I am".... YMMV......
