Goodbye to the First Amendment

[Riverwind]

Because I still am not sure if I like the bill or not, it seems to me as I read this bill that it only enforces other laws already in effect. It brings about questions like what kind of threats have the Secret Service who's job it is to protect the president and those running for that office. You see Mac I don't think we have the same information that congress has, to make a valid decision however, if I see the feds abusing this law, I will be one of the first to be screaming at the supreme court to end the law.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke

You see, some things you know right off are wrong, others you question, this is such a law for me as I don't know the intent.

River

[Mac]

Because I still am not sure if I like the bill or not, it seems to me as I read this bill that it only enforces other laws already in effect. It brings about questions like what kind of threats have the Secret Service who's job it is to protect the president and those running for that office. You see Mac I don't think we have the same information that congress has, to make a valid decision however, if I see the feds abusing this law, I will be one of the first to be screaming at the supreme court to end the law.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke

You see, some things you know right off are wrong, others you question, this is such a law for me as I don't know the intent.

River

I have the same concerns which you expressed in your post. I was just expressing my views as to how most liberals respond when they are in the majority vs when they are in the minority.

[Slammr]

How can liberals not see this as an infringement on our Constitutional rights? Is it just because the bill had overwhelming support of demodcrats in both houses of Congress and of a democratic president? If republicans had been in control (with total democratic opposition) and had passed this bill you would up in arms over it.

This liberal is the one that started this thread, and I blame all of Congress and the President for letting it pass.

[Mac]

How can liberals not see this as an infringement on our Constitutional rights? Is it just because the bill had overwhelming support of demodcrats in both houses of Congress and of a democratic president? If republicans had been in control (with total democratic opposition) and had passed this bill you would up in arms over it.

This liberal is the one that started this thread, and I blame all of Congress and the President for letting it pass.

Congratulations and thank you.

[Slammr]

Because I still am not sure if I like the bill or not, it seems to me as I read this bill that it only enforces other laws already in effect. It brings about questions like what kind of threats have the Secret Service who's job it is to protect the president and those running for that office. You see Mac I don't think we have the same information that congress has, to make a valid decision however, if I see the feds abusing this law, I will be one of the first to be screaming at the supreme court to end the law.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke

You see, some things you know right off are wrong, others you question, this is such a law for me as I don't know the intent.

River

This law is way too broad. It covers not just the White House and Congress, but it could cover any structure in which someone with secret service coverage appears, and it's broad enough to cover an otherwise legal protest. The question is how they'll use it. Will they use it to stop protests? If a Republican candidate comes to Portland to speak, does that mean I can't join in a protest outside where he's speaking, because under this law, since he has secret service protection, that structure is protected under this law.

They, and I include Obama and the Democrats, are, referencing your signature, trading liberty for temporary security, and history shows, once one gives up liberty, one seldom gets it back.

I never said I trust the Democrats or the President. They are all politicians. I just trust the Democrats and the President to do us, the 99%, less harm than will the Republicans, who only care for the 1%.

[Riverwind]

This law is way too broad. It covers not just the White House and Congress, but it could cover any structure in which someone with secret service coverage appears, and it's broad enough to cover an otherwise legal protest. The question is how they'll use it. Will they use it to stop protests?

This is that part that I am not sure about, there is also the supreme court which if the law is challenged because it violates the first amendment then we go from there.

If a Republican candidate comes to Portland to speak, does that mean I can't join in a protest outside where he's speaking, because under this law, since he has secret service protection, that structure is protected under this law.

They, and I include Obama and the Democrats, are, referencing your signature, trading liberty for temporary security, and history shows, once one gives up liberty, one seldom gets it back.

I never said I trust the Democrats or the President. They are all politicians. I just trust the Democrats and the President to do us, the 99%, less harm than will the Republicans, who only care for the 1%.

I do agree with you here, the democrats are the lesser of the evil, we are loosing by degrees.

River

[A-1]

Fuck the Constitution...

Burn it now and let the Tea Party write the New One... Call it, the SLAVE Contract with America...

[Riverwind]

Wat a wonderful Idea, have them write it up then agree on it, until then use the current constitution, I think its safe because that group can't agree on anything even among themselves.

River