- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 164
- Location
- Chicago, Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
It appears I may not be completely understanding your argument.... Are you arguing more on the side that the due to the magnitude of population in the park vs. space available there is an increased risk of fire. Or that these people are somewhat less responsible or intelligent than the average person and thus the extra risk of fire is present? In the first situation, I haven't seen enough evidence of out of the ordinary rubbish lying around to support this claim.... but admittedly I just cannot find evidence, that doesn't mean that situation was not present. To the second situation, overly broad claims that these particular people are less intelligent, less responsible, less clean... etc.... just cannot be measured by any rational means and merely seems to boil down to name calling with absolutely no ability to gather any evidence to back it up.Again though, with that sheer number you are guaranteed to have idiots amongst them, not everyone is a well adjusted individual or has common sense.
And while i have not seen the opinions re: Ninth amendment with respect to the right to commerce, my initial reaction is that the argument is sound. But by your own logic then, if commerce is protected, and therefore by extension so is travel as it would be a necessary condition, so then would shelter as it is a basic human need and food for that matter. Now having said that these kinds of protests where people have actively prevented people from "commerce" have always (as far as I know, feel free to show educate me otherwise) been under the guise of reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions never under the guise of a ninth amendment violation of others "right to commerce". In general the constitution provides limits on Government action not the actions of its citizens.Correct, but there is an implied right to commerce within the ninth, transit is required to fullfill commerce so therefore it is a violation of the right of commerce to stop someone from engaging in their job. As well there is a property rights clause within the fourth and fifth amendments respectively, to destroy or risk my property is to violate my rights.
Also I don't see the connection here to the fourth and especially the Fifth amendments. The fourth prohibits the state from (in general) illegal searches and seizure on behalf of the government without warrant. And the fifth is about due process of law which is the general basis by which I claim that the government must first seek court, approval, before taking action against said protesters.
(side note having not seen the case law or decisions re: 9th and commerce, it interests me, any chance you could steer me in the right direction (case title, etc...) if not no worries I can look it up, I'm just trying to avoid sifting through a potential mountain of 9th amendment case law. This is not a "show proof" request. its a help me look in the right direction request. The assertion that 9th implicitly protects commerce between citizens seems reasonable, in my opinion.)
Can you give me an example of any space in the United States that does not fall under the category of City owned, State owned, or privately owned? This sounds like you can camp "all you want", just nowhere in the united states. But I digress, The issue here, seems to be whether this is a valid form of the exercise of the people's first amendment rights. If it is determined to be then I don't understand how anyone can argue it trumps camping ordinances. On, the flip side if the courts determine that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions apply then these people are in fact in violation. In essence The question of whether or not some action is Constitutionally Protected would take precedence over the decision of whether or not it was legal.People can camp all they want, but not on city/state/private property.
True, the presence of court shopping aside (as I think we both agree there is no realistic way to prevent it), happens on both sides. I will say this however, court shopping, I wouldn't believe, to be that much of an issue in this situation as the people in each U.S. District must first petition their own district. I.E. those in Oakland can only petition their own district court they cannot go to say Cleveland and petition that U.S. Court of Appeals to hear their case in regard to Oakland just because those judges might have a propensity to decide in their behalf.I agree, but it should not be court shopped as many of these issues tend to be.
I generally agree, albeit from probably the opposite side of the fence. However whatever decision the courts come up with, while I may disagree, I must also hold as legitimate and legally binding until an overriding entity (higher court) states otherwise.Even though I am not a fan of appeals to the court for the reasons of judicial prejudices it's the best way to solve these issues. I just hope the courts render proper decisions and not some of the contorted crap that fed courts are famous for.
Last edited: