This could be bad

[Maddhattter]

Tell me where case law trumps the wording of the Constitution. As I said, you can argue incorporation but the wording of the Constitution is "CONGRESS shall make no law."

Don't have to, as case law did not "trump" the constitution. It extends the protections.

I'm not arguing for incorporation as it's already been set as precedent.

Again, your support of the state's ability to violate constitutional rights is without merit. The law already disagrees with you, I don't have to show you anything to the contrary, aside from when the law disagreed with you, as I did with the case above.

If the states had the right to violate constitutional rights, there would be no point in enumerating those rights, as the federal government could easily pressure the states to enact laws that it couldn't.

In other words, if it worked the way you claim, the constitution would be no more than mental masturbation and worth less than the paper that it's written on.

[Forever_frost]

I'll admit I was wrong. I had forgotten about De Jonge and Gitlow. However it covers peaceful assembly. When the police ask you to disperse you do so.

[Forever_frost]

Tell me Hatter, do the police have an obligation to uphold the law of the city concerning squatting and camping in the park?

[Maddhattter]

Tell me Hatter, do the police have an obligation to uphold the law of the city concerning squatting and camping in the park?

Not if it violates the constitutional rights of the people squatting and/or camping. Primarily because it would be, by definition, an unlawful order for their superiors to order them to do such.

In order to accept freedom, you must accept the problems inherent in the big picture.

To put it simply, I think the people of the Westboro Baptist Church are the biggest pieces of shit that people can produce and the filth they spew destroys brain cells with more efficiency than heroin and Justin Bieber combined. Regardless of that, I support their right to protest and spew their filth as it is their constitutional rights.

You're still claiming that local government has the right to infringe on the enumerated rights of the constitution when legal precedent already dictates that they do not have such ability.

[Forever_frost]

They have no right to squat or camp. I accept the problems inherent, however throwing beer bottles and bottles full of urine at cops means you're going to get CS'd. That simple. Police, like the protesters have the right to self defense.

I agree with WBC. I'm a member of Patriot Guard and have to grit my teeth and suck it up when they're around

No, I'm saying that the right to protest ends when it turns violent. Or when it involves private property. There are laws on the books concerning squatting. Their right says assembly and protest. Does not say camping on public land. Go home, shower, come back and protest later. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here

[Forever_frost]

The freedom of assembly is not unlimited. The government may limit the freedom if the instance under consideration satisfies three conditions. First, the limitation must serve an important governmental interest. For example, a law preventing people from gathering to start a violent revolution is valid.

Second, the limitation must be content neutral. This means it must not control assemblies based on the kinds of people who gather, their reason for gathering, or their beliefs. A law preventing people from gathering to support flag burning, for example, would violate the freedom of assembly.

Third, the limitation must restrict the freedom of assembly as little as possible to serve the important governmental interest. In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), for instance, the Supreme Court decided that the government may require permits for parading on public streets. As long as it issues the permits without discrimination (treating different groups unequally), the government may control the time, place, and manner of assemblies for the sake of public safety and convenience.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/freedom-assembly

[Maddhattter]

They have no right to squat or camp.

Except the places that they were being run off from were public property. So long as they were performing a nonviolent protest, the government, local or not, had no right to disperse them.

I accept the problems inherent, however throwing beer bottles and bottles full of urine at cops means you're going to get CS'd.

So, when a few people break the law, the entire group should be punished accordingly? Well, death penalty for the entire military, government and general populace as if you kill people, you get the death penalty and people have killed people.

That simple. Police, like the protesters have the right to self defense.

That right to self defense does not extend to the assault of those who did not perform the crime.

I agree with WBC.

Based on many of your statements on this board, this wouldn't terribly surprise me, but I'm going to assume that you mistyped something here.

I'm a member of Patriot Guard and have to grit my teeth and suck it up when they're around

How can you justify sucking it up when the state government is not bound by constitutional mandate to protect their rights? After all, if the state passed a law forbidding them from protesting, congress didn't pass the law so it would be all good according to you.

No, I'm saying that the right to protest ends when it turns violent. Or when it involves private property.

Except that the protest did not turn violent. Does that mean a few people didn't get violent? Of course not. The protest, as a whole, did not turn violent. Even after the police assaulted them. Also, the situation above was them being kicked off of public property.

There are laws on the books concerning squatting. Their right says assembly and protest. Does not say camping on public land. Go home, shower, come back and protest later. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here

Except forcing them to disassemble is by definition preventing them from assembling. And the laws on the books concerning squatting are okay, until they violate constitutional rights, especially in regards to public property as it would be the government infringing their rights.

You either support the constitution and support their right to protest, or you disregard the constitution and say it's okay for states to infringe on peoples constitutional rights. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Captain Crawfish]

somebody needs to get a bunch of job apps and start passing them out over there!

[Forever_frost]

So you're saying the protesters were going to give up the violent members and go about their way? Wrong. Did you not see what happened in NYC when the police attempted to make arrests? The mob swept in and took them back. I've been in those situations.

There was violence at the protest. The protesters were ordered to disperse. they should have done so. They had no right to return to the park to camp, as there was a law prohibiting it.

I support the right to protest. Peaceful protest. However when cops start getting hit with projectiles am I going to cry when they return fire with pepper spray and CS gas? No. That is the appropriate response. Had they opened fire with their sidearms, THEN they'd be wrong. They were following the law, established case law since you believe that case law establishes the intent of the constitution other than what the 1st amendment says and it case law extends that protection to the states under the 14th. Got it.

However, you overlooked case law that states when that freedom of assembly can be curtailed. Case law is a bitch isn't it? As long as it issues the permits without discrimination (treating different groups unequally), the government may control the time, place, and manner of assemblies for the sake of public safety and convenience.

[Maddhattter]

The freedom of assembly is not unlimited. The government may limit the freedom if the instance under consideration satisfies three conditions. First, the limitation must serve an important governmental interest. For example, a law preventing people from gathering to start a violent revolution is valid.

Assaulting a peaceful protest does not serve an important governmental interest. Neither would dispersing them.

Second, the limitation must be content neutral. This means it must not control assemblies based on the kinds of people who gather, their reason for gathering, or their beliefs. A law preventing people from gathering to support flag burning, for example, would violate the freedom of assembly.

Right, and mandated laws, such as the forbidding of camping, that occur during the protests appear to have been done to disperse the protest as "Fed up with Occupy Wall Street-style encampments, police in cities around the country are increasingly cracking down on protesters who refuse to vacate public spaces." So, there is no reason to assume that it is neutral.

Third, the limitation must restrict the freedom of assembly as little as possible to serve the important governmental interest. In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), for instance, the Supreme Court decided that the government may require permits for parading on public streets. As long as it issues the permits without discrimination (treating different groups unequally), the government may control the time, place, and manner of assemblies for the sake of public safety and convenience.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-...eedom-assembly

Preventing people from assembling, such as expelling people from public property when they are peaceably protesting, does not "restrict the freedom of assembly as little as possible to serve the important governmental interest"

And I have to LOL at your argument that extending the constitutional protection is trial law "trumping" the constitution, but trial law limiting the protections of the constitution is endorsed by you.

Please at least keep your argument consistent.

[Forever_frost]

You're saying that there was no prohibitation of camping before this protest? Is that what you're trying to sell?

[Forever_frost]

I love discussions like this, keeps my mind sharp

[racrguy]

You're saying that there was no prohibitation of camping before this protest? Is that what you're trying to sell?

Fucking learn to read. Then pick a side and stick with it. You're flip flopping sides like a damn politician.

[racrguy]

I love discussions like this, keeps my mind sharp

Sharp as a spoon maybe.

[Forever_frost]

I've yet to flip flop. The actions of the police were not a violation of the 1st amendment because the individuals engaged in the protest were not acting peaceably nor did they have a right to camp in that park. While they did have the right to protest, it did not extend to violating a public ordinance that prohibited anyone from camping in that park.

Where is my flip flop? I've refined my answer as I flesh it out.