Results 1 to 10 of 16
#1 H.R. 347...Are You Freaking Kidding Me?08-05-2012, 12:42 PM
"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."
There's nothing ambiguous about the above statement. However, this bill overwhelmingly passed in congress 388-3 with 42 not voting. Republican and Democrat including 188 congresscritters endorsed by the Tea Party. In case you don't know, this is H.R. 347:
This shit has to stop.Deplorably Proud To Be An American
08-05-2012, 01:08 PM
No use sending it to the supreme court, Roberts and company would likely give it their whole hearted approval, after all it's not their problem who we elect.Pffffffffffffffffffffff! Buh Bye Big Ears
08-05-2012, 03:13 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
From ACLU website:
How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?
By Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 11:56am
Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.
The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.
It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).
The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.
H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.
Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.
Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.
Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.
Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.
UPDATE: The headline has been changed to provide some description of the bill.While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun
08-06-2012, 11:34 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
Keep your powder dry folks. There is only one thing these A-holes will listen to, the sound of high speed FOD.Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
C. S. Lewis
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
08-06-2012, 06:20 PM
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
So we have an amended bill based on a law passed some 40 years ago and in force under both parties reign.
Looking at the roll call vote, it is nice to see that various "Tea Party Republicans" like Bachmann and Allen West must have slept through Michelle's Constitutional Classes in early 2011.
08-07-2012, 12:53 PM
What else can we expect from a thin-skinned, tin-horn wannnabe dictator?
The status quo has got to go!"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
08-07-2012, 02:24 PM
It passed the House yesterday, 383-3. That's pretty bipartisan, in my book. Obama hasn't even signed it yet. Who knows? Maybe he won't, although with that kind of margin in the House it's kind of difficult to imagine he won't, since there are enough votes at least in the House to override a veto.
If I remember correctly, the Secret Service created "Free Speech zones" for anti-Bush protesters during W's tenure in office-at the 2004 GOP convention, for example, or the G-8 summit.
I personally can't wait for us on the left to figure out a way to apply this to abortion clinics. Maybe we can make the "free speech zone" 20 miles away from the clinic? When that happens, you can thank Michelle Bachman and Allan West for their votes.
08-07-2012, 07:46 PM
There's a big difference between the president's security detail setting up a perimeter to protect the POTUS and passing a law that violates the First Amendment, but I wouldn't expect a libtard to grasp that concept since all you lefties subscribe to totalitarianism.
I'm sure that you and your leftist/marxist friends want to expand speechless zones well beyond baby death camps. I'm sure that you want to apply this law to any speech, any where that you disagree with. Hell, why don't you just admit that you and your leftist/marxist comrades want to repeal the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I'm sure that you totally agree with 0bonga's 'fundamental transformation' agenda.
I wish all you leftist/marxist would secede, form your communist utopia and let the rest of us enjoy our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You people make me sick..................."The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
08-08-2012, 09:33 AM
I was being sarcastic to make a point-that pretty much everyone in the government signed on to this bill, so you should be blaming the ones you voted for as much as blame the ones I voted for.
I'm a liberal, but I'm not a communist. I don't support repealing any amendments. I was just pointing out that both sides appear to have supported this, and used an example of something that conservatives fear to make my point.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|