The Political Pendulum

Librarian Gets Kicked Out Of McCain Town Hall Meeting

Posted on: September 15, 2008

Every town hall meeting I’ve ever attended allows parties from both sides of the coin to attend, this lady wasn’t even inside, she was standing outside as most protesters do.  I guess John McCain doesn’t like being compared to Bush, even though he’s agreed with him 90% of the time.  

Information is thanks to a hat tip from Rachel Maddow to Bittbox on twitter.

Advertisements

1 Response to "Librarian Gets Kicked Out Of McCain Town Hall Meeting"

Americans are afforded the rule of law. Court decisions too numerous to mention confirms this fact. However, Washington D.C is a separate government, so says the Supreme Court.
In D.C this government has its own laws, applicable only in D.C, and insular possessions, it excludes the several states of the union. I think everyone that has been paying attention, is aware of the Department of Homeland Security. What most people don’t realize is this Agency is also confined to D.C and insular possessions. Here’s the proof.

District of Columbia Code
DIVISION I GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT
TITLE 7 HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY
SUBTITLE J PUBLIC SAFETY

§ 7-2202. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency authorized; Director and other personnel; compensation [Formerly § 6-1402].

(a) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, the Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized to establish in the municipal government of such District a Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency to consist of a Director and such other personnel as may be needed. Such Director shall be the executive head of such Agency……

The Secret Service was handed over to Homeland Security, and enforces the D.C code dealing with foreign diplomats in D.C. This particular code sections deals with banners and posters that might offend a foreign diplomat in D.C that’s it folks. There are no other laws.

I’m sure this Secret Service agent didn’t sign the complaint, that leaves only the local cop chargeable with, acting under the “color of law”, violating a citizens First Amendment Rights, and threatening arrest.

Here’s the Supreme Court case, with link that explains it all. enjoy

U.S. Supreme Court
BOOS v. BARRY, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=485&invol=312

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-A.
The question presented in this case is whether a provision of the District of Columbia Code, 22-1115, violates the First Amendment. This section prohibits the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to bring that foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute.” It also prohibits any congregation of three or more persons within 500 feet of a foreign embassy.
The most useful starting point for assessing 22-1115 is to compare it with an analogous statute adopted by Congress, which is the body primarily responsible for implementing our obligations under the Vienna Convention. Title 18 U.S.C. 112(b) (2) subjects to criminal punishment willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign [485 U.S. 312, 325] official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties.”
Its legislative history reveals that 112 was developed as a deliberate effort to implement our international obligations. See, e. g., 118 Cong. Rec. 27112-27113 (1972). At the same time, the history reflects a substantial concern with the effect of any such legislation on First Amendment freedoms. For example, the original provision contained a prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass . . . or obstruct a foreign official,” as does the current version of 112. In a portion with similarities to the display clause, however, it also punished anyone who
“parades, pickets, displays any flag, banner, sign, placard, or device, or utters any word, phrase, sound, or noise, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, threatening, or harassing any foreign official or obstructing him in the performance of his duties.” Act for Protection of Foreign Official Guests of the United States, Pub. L. 92-539, Title III, 301(c)(1), 86 Stat. 1070, 1073 (1972).
Concerned with the effects that such a provision might have on First Amendment freedoms, the Senate added a new subsection, which directed:
“[N]othing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 301(e), 86 Stat. 1073.
See S. Rep. No. 92-1105, p. 19 (1972).
After the 1972 passage of 112 in this form, congressional concerns about its impact on First Amendment freedoms apparently escalated rather than abated. In 1976, Congress revisited the area and repealed the antipicketing provision, leaving in place only the current prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign [485 U.S. 312, 326] official.” 112(b)(2). In modifying 112, Congress was motivated by First Amendment concerns:
“This language [of the original anti-picketing provision] raises serious Constitutional questions because it appears to include within its purview conduct and speech protected by the First Amendment.” S. Rep. No. 94-1273, p. 8, n. 9 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1614, p. 6, n. 9 (1976).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: