SILENCE DOGS!!!!The conventions should be interesting...
SILENCE DOGS!!!!The conventions should be interesting...
You can protest Obama to your hearts content.
You just can't block areas where he's supposed to be visiting. First of all, that's already a disturbance of the peace to block an area.
Second, if they're blocking the President, isn't it possible that they're meaning to threaten him in some way?
This doesn't just serve Obama. It's going to serve the next Republican President too. Bush probably could have used a law like that.
You obviously don't have any comprehension on how long before the POTUS enters an event to speak that the Secret Service secures the area...and how long people are held in the area not allowed to leave after the POTUS departs.
If you did you wouldn't have made the silly observation that you did above.
And yet it happens all the time. 1st Amendment rights and all.First of all, that's already a disturbance of the peace to block an area.
Why does this suddenly become a problem when a Democrat is in office? This was never a concern by anyone the previous 8 years.Second, if they're blocking the President, isn't it possible that they're meaning to threaten him in some way?
And when it's attempted to be enforced when Romney or Santorum takes office the "rights" groups will howl and wail and gnash teeth and shriek to the high heavens about how draconian this law is and the very same Libs that voted for it will call for investigations into the legality of it.This doesn't just serve Obama. It's going to serve the next Republican President too.
And yet as evil as you Libtards claim he is...he never came up with a law like this nor did the GOP controlled congress.Bush probably could have used a law like that.
Define "where he's supposed to be"? 5 feet away? 50 feet away? 5 blocks? 5 miles? 5 counties?You can protest the President without blocking where he's supposed to be.
That's a very ambiguous term that gives so much leeway that "where he's supposed to be" could be defined as the same state.
So now if I'm in Midland, Texas and I want to hold an Obama protest (this is THEORY ONLY...I'm NOT holding a protest of any kind) and he's in Dallas...under the "where he's supposed to be" hypothesis I could be arrested.
So, you can't just try to disturb the area where people are trying to get in. You can't block any other doors. The sidewalk is tricky. Technically, anybody can be there, but protesters do test their limits on it.
Oh heck, if the liberals pitch a fit, throw FACE up in their face. lol.
Hasn't for the past 200 plus years. They had no trouble saying everything from porn to flag burning was covered by the 1st Amendment. IF a President truly respects what the 1st Amendment says...then he wouldn't sign a law like this.My apologies for my ignorance, TX. Doesn't this make things harder on the President though to allow nearly anything in the name of the first amendment?
No if you were harmed blocking the entrance to a church you'd be hailed on the left as a champion for the separation of church and state...and if you were harmed in any way lawyers would be falling all over themselves to represent you in your lawsuit.One's right to swing one's fist ends at somebody's face. I'm pretty certain that if I tried to block the exits to the church tonight or tomorrow for service that I'd be arrested. Same thing with Wal-Mart (although I'm sure the customers would run said person over).
You'd be a hero.
No the Constitution makes it good or bad. And by the Constitution this is a bad law.Because people are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't make a law bad or good.
It shouldn't have even come to that...this President and his followers believe in "free speech for ME but not for thee".True, and I think it will be shot down.
That's because he has a class and grace and understanding of the Constitution his successor will never have.That's true. He just put up with people throwing things at the Presidental car and trying to come up to it the morning of inaugeration.
The new law is designed as thuggery pure and simple. The current POTUS doesn't want toe view inside his armored limo spoiled by throngs of people that detest his policies and what he's doing to his country. He would prefer rose petals spread before him as he walks.I would think that if there's an organized protest that the city was informed about, then there's a place that the protesters would be assigned to be. When Bush came years ago to Winston-Salem, there was a "cage" where the protesters stayed. It wasn't really a cage. lol. It was a confined area that was sort of away from the people wanting to see the President, but when they left, they would pass the protesters by and see the signs. If anybody left the "cage" to go and disturb the ones waiting in line to see the President, then it was technically against the law. The officer could technically arrest them, but they usually told them to go back. The new law would probably insist on an arrest.
Again define what the "area" is where people are trying to get in. Is it an exit off the freeway. Entrance to the parking lot? A street adjacent to the auditorium or stadium where the POTUS is speaking?So, you can't just try to disturb the area where people are trying to get in.
Again...as I said before...that is taken care of 5-6 HOURS before he POTUS arrives in town. People that the Secret Service have on a watch list in that particular town are investigated and interviewed 2-3 days before the visit and told not to come near the event The layers of security that go into a POTUS event make this law unnecessary.You can't block any other doors. The sidewalk is tricky. Technically, anybody can be there, but protesters do test their limits on it.
Damn right.Oh heck, if the liberals pitch a fit, throw FACE up in their face. lol.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|