I was inconvenienced by protesters, again, tonight.

[phrodeau]

Parade permits and amplified sound permits are required by local ordinances, not federal ones. You don't need a permit if you want to host Woodstock III on your uncle's 500-acre farm.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Maybe if enough motorists got out of their cars and beat the shit out of the assholes blocking traffic they would stop doing it. I would not recommend throwing them off the bridge though, unless it is the part that passes over land.

I see, the First Amendment only applies to those who you happen to agree with, the rest should be beaten into submission or thrown off a bridge?

What does the First Amendment have to do with it. If the demonstrators were not interfering with the rights of others, that would be okay, but that is not what is happening. Everybody has rights, you know, not just Liberals.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So in a "modern world" you would rewrite the Constitution to favor liberal causes? That is kind of convenient. Let me guess the Skokie decision should not stand because the constitution should allow disruptive protests against cops and "1%ers" but should proscribe peaceful protests with bigots spewing inciting hate-speech?

Your right to free speech does not include to the right to shout down other people engaged in free speech. Your right to peaceably assemble on a freeway does not include your right to prevent others from peaceably assembling at work.

So yes to stopping traffic, no to blockading abortion clinics?

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. At all. I was agreeing with you 100%.

But yes, my free speech does include the right to shout down other people. I shouldn't but as written it does.

My peacably assmembling on a freeway doesn't prevent you from going to work unless there are millions of us. Get off the fucking freeway and take city streets.

So Constitutionally, yes to stopping traffic, yes to blockading abortion clinics.

Common sense however says no to either and we should put that in writing. Just like we should clear up that whole right to arms thing that we clearly don't buy. Honestly I'm not sure how much of it should be allowed to stand without at least looking it over.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The right to peaceably assemble is in the First Amendment, yes.

But this is not peaceable assembling. This is interfering with the rights of others, and that is not in the First Amendment.

 

[RobDownSouth]

But this is not peaceable assembling. This is interfering with the rights of others, and that is not in the First Amendment.

Unimpeded traffic is a "right" now?

Who knew?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. At all. I was agreeing with you 100%.

But yes, my free speech does include the right to shout down other people. I shouldn't but as written it does.

My peacably assmembling on a freeway doesn't prevent you from going to work unless there are millions of us. Get off the fucking freeway and take city streets.

So Constitutionally, yes to stopping traffic, yes to blockading abortion clinics.

Common sense however says no to either and we should put that in writing. Just like we should clear up that whole right to arms thing that we clearly don't buy. Honestly I'm not sure how much of it should be allowed to stand without at least looking it over.

The OP was about blocking the San Mateo Bridge. Taking city streets instead would be a detour of at least 70 miles.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Unimpeded traffic is a "right" now?

Who knew?

Using public streets, etc. is a right.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Using public streets, etc. is a right.

I see. Well, thanks for sharing that.

 

[Que]

It has been a right since 1215 AD with article 42 of the Magna Carta:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

These cases assert this common law upon which our law is based:

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

Yes, the freedom to go hither and yon is a right.

Not just on public motorways. One cannot bar access across private land if it is the only means to get from here to there.

 

[Sean Renaud]

But this is not peaceable assembling. This is interfering with the rights of others, and that is not in the First Amendment.

Except it's not, getting to work is not a right. I certainly can't find it in the Constitution.

The OP was about blocking the San Mateo Bridge. Taking city streets instead would be a detour of at least 70 miles.

Not realy my problem.

It has been a right since 1215 AD with article 42 of the Magna Carta:



These cases assert this common law upon which our law is based:





Yes, the freedom to go hither and yon is a right.

Not just on public motorways. One cannot bar access across private land if it is the only means to get from here to there.

The Magna Carta holds power in America? News to me.

And considering how many toll roads and bridges would qualify as the only way to get someplace clearly this isn't true.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The Magna Carta holds power in America? News to me.

And considering how many toll roads and bridges would qualify as the only way to get someplace clearly this isn't true.

Someone should tell the Port Authority of NYC that I shouldn't have to pay a $14 toll to cross over from NJ to Manhattan to get to work. They're interfering with my Magna Carta guaranteed rights!

 

[Que]

Except it's not, getting to work is not a right. I certainly can't find it in the Constitution.



Not realy my problem.



The Magna Carta holds power in America? News to me.

And considering how many toll roads and bridges would qualify as the only way to get someplace clearly this isn't true.

It is news to you that our entire body of law and the US Constitution are derived from common law from 1215?

Yeah. Common Law is a thing.

 

[Que]

Someone should tell the Port Authority of NYC that I shouldn't have to pay a $14 toll to cross over from NJ to Manhattan to get to work. They're interfering with my Magna Carta guaranteed rights!

That method of passage does not pre-exist their building it.

One cannot prevent someone from building a boat and sailing the seas. That does not mean you have a right to use someone else's boat.

If you own both bridgeheads you can build a bridge. That does not mean you can impede boats that travel the waterway that you have bridged. It has to be high enough or movable for safe passage as before our bridge.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Magna Carta holds power in America? News to me.

And considering how many toll roads and bridges would qualify as the only way to get someplace clearly this isn't true.

Strictly speaking then, wouldn't red lights be "unconstitutional"? After all, they impede progress....

 

[Sean Renaud]

It is news to you that our entire body of law and the US Constitution are derived from common law from 1215?

Yeah. Common Law is a thing.

No, that is not news to me. It doesn't change the fact that the Magna Carta holds no legal power in the United States.

That method of passage does not pre-exist their building it.

One cannot prevent someone from building a boat and sailing the seas. That does not mean you have a right to use someone else's boat.

If you own both bridgeheads you can build a bridge. That does not mean you can impede boats that travel the waterway that you have bridged. It has to be high enough or movable for safe passage as before our bridge.

What does that have to do with anything? Them charging me to get across the river impedes me which you just said they can't do, not even if it's privately owned. So which is it?

I'm sure you can prevent someone from building a boat and sailing the seas by the way.

Strictly speaking then, wouldn't red lights be "unconstitutional"? After all, they impede progress....

Seems logical to me!

 

[cjh]

Except it's not, getting to work is not a right. I certainly can't find it in the Constitution.



Not realy my problem.



The Magna Carta holds power in America? News to me.

And considering how many toll roads and bridges would qualify as the only way to get someplace clearly this isn't true.

Yup.

That's why I only borrow from Jewish bankers.

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

 

[phrodeau]

Using public streets, etc. is a right.

That includes protestors, too.

 

[Que]

That includes protestors, too.

You have the right to do calisthenics. You do not have the right to swing your arms so that they make contact with someone else while you do it. Your rights always end where someone else's begin.

No judge is going to dismiss a legitimate public nuisance, obstruction, or trespass charge because of a right to assemble.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Public nuisance laws trump the First Amendment's Constitutional right to assembly.

Who knew?

Besides query, of course.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Public nuisance laws trump the First Amendment's Constitutional right to assembly.

Who knew?

Besides query, of course.

Well everybody knows, it just doesn't make it right.

 

[Que]

I am not to fond of Congress getting together and passing laws, most of which I disagree with. How about if I get 535 of my closest friends to employ our constitutional right to freedom of assembly in the House and the Senate. Each time someone gets up to use the john we will "occupy" the seat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What does the First Amendment have to do with it. If the demonstrators were not interfering with the rights of others, that would be okay, but that is not what is happening. Everybody has rights, you know, not just Liberals.

So, just for blocking traffic, and regardless of the existence or content of their political message, they should be beaten up and thrown off a bridge (but only if land is below)?

Please kill yourself today.

Today.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I am not to fond of Congress getting together and passing laws, most of which I disagree with. How about if I get 535 of my closest friends to employ our constitutional right to freedom of assembly in the House and the Senate. Each time someone gets up to use the john we will "occupy" the seat.

https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb34jnMQgU1qzxyzqo1_500.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

I am not to fond of Congress getting together and passing laws, most of which I disagree with. How about if I get 535 of my closest friends to employ our constitutional right to freedom of assembly in the House and the Senate. Each time someone gets up to use the john we will "occupy" the seat.

I think calling the House and Senate public buildings is only true in the most technical of cases. I'm always curious what these laws are that people disagree with. It seems that's just something people say because people say stupid shit.