THE PLAN TO BAN TEA PARTY RALLIES
SIT DOWN & SHUT UP OR ELSE
Heading into the most important election of our lifetime, Barack Obama and a terrified Congress want to make sure angry Americans can never again gather en mass to change the course of history as we did with the 1.2 million member 912 March and the demonstrations that flipped Congress in 2010. No, our tyrannical politicians want to force you to stay home and shut up.HR 347 and S 1794, the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" has nothing to do with improving landscaping around federal buildings. This bill is being presented as a No Trespassing bill. Reasonable people understand that lawful restrictions and protections are needed for government officials and government functions. However, this legislation makes it a federal crime to allegedly DISRUPT the "ORDERLY CONDUCT" of government.
The violator doesn't have to be physically on the grounds where the government business is being conducted, just within the vicinity of the self-proclaimed "business of government." The law is not limited to buildings or locations as the title suggests, but seems to be "roving" and follows persons protected by Secret Service wherever they may go.
- Standing on a sidewalk with a sign as a Congressman walks by? BUSTED
- Traffic slowing to read your Tea Party signs? BUSTED
- Make a statement at a town hall meeting that your Congressman doesn't like? BUSTED
1752(a)(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds;
1752(c)(1) the term 'restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area – (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
The right protected in the First Amendment is the right to peaceably assemble. We do not have the right to impede the flow of traffic, either on sidewalks or roadways. We do not have the right to impede anyone's business practices. But this law is not about private business, it is about government operations. Make that Big Brother Government Operations.
This Congress has a habit of writing in vague and overbroad terms; yet, in order for laws to be Constitutionally sound they CANNOT be vague and overbroad in ANY aspect, and they can ONLY interfere with the rights of the people in as narrow a capacity as both necessary and according with Constitutional principle. But this law makes it a crime to disrupt the government. The Supreme Court has said this type of broad language gives too much power to the government, and they have been saying this since 1939. This law actually places the desire of the government to be free from disruption unconstitutional power over the right of the people to redress the government of their grievances.
Suppose your Congressman, who is under Secret Service protection, has a town hall meeting and many members of the community show up to challenge him on his voting record. This law could be construed to allow federal charges to be brought against these citizens for disrupting his town hall meeting by attending and demanding to be heard under the First Amendment. After all, it will not be hard to claim that people who are not happy with the Congressman's voting record had the "intent" to disrupt this meeting. This vague and overbroad language has the potential to ultimately prevent people from gathering outside any government building or politician's function for fear of being charged with a federal offense. In Constitutional law, we call that a "chilling effect" and the Supreme Court has always held these restrictions to be unconstitutional. After all, who can afford to risk going to jail, to carry a record of federal arrest, to stand for their rights – even if they will win?
The right to orderly conduct of government is NOT a constitutionally protected right. However we DO have the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Our Constitution enshrines in government the fundamental principle of protection for our God-given, unalienable rights freely to speak and assemble. These rights of We the People are held as foundation stones of our individual Liberty and the government must protect these rights, not limit them. And throughout history, our Supreme Court has protected these rights.
- Hague v. CID, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
- Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988)
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983)
- Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, (1983)
People have the right to complain, the right to have their voices be heard, the right to redress their grievances in the form of protests. These actions are supposed to make the government take notice. Disruption cannot be the standard to stop speech. To allow the government to create this new standard allows the government to tell us to sit down and shut up.
The chilling effect occurs not in the fact that you are denied your due process. If you are arrested because of unlawful legislation you can fight the prosecution and even sue the government for violating your rights. If the Supreme Court has not become completely corrupted you have fairly good odds of winning. But, as anyone who has been wronged by a government agency can tell you, a victory will often come at the expense of a ruined life and livelihood.
The bottom line is that there are laws in every municipality that punish Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Assault, and any other crime involving real threats against government and persons in government. Why do we need a vague and overbroad FEDERAL LAW to enforce laws that are already in effect, when that law could encroach on our God-given, protected rights? William Penn said, "Necessity, it is said, is the plea for every infringement of human Liberty; it is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." Clearly, we don't need a "Federal Trespass Bill." We already have one; it's called the Bill of Rights!
When will we have enough of government intrusion on our Constitutionally protected rights? We were outraged because we are Taxed Enough Already. When will we recognize that if we cannot trust the government with our finances, then we certainly cannot trust the government with our Liberty?
Keep Faith,
Lynne Roberts, President
Americans United for Freedom
Americans United for Freedom
KrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. We are proud to have KrisAnne as a contributor to Americans United for Freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment