• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Orders Cincinnati Not To Ticket OWS'ers

Paschendale said:
And yet this is a situation where city ordinances are butting up against First Amendment rights. The judge is following his vow to uphold the constitution.

This is an entirely routine action by judiciary, and is COMPLETELY LEGAL. This is business as usual and how our legal system actually works. I'm sorry if you just really hate these people, Reg, but that's no excuse to trample on due process.
Click to expand...

Does that mean this same judge can be called upon to stick up for anyone who is cited under this ordinance, from now until eternity?
 
samsmart said:
You mean in defense of people's constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Show us in the Constitution where illegally camping out is protected. Thanks in advance.

No one is telling these people they can't assemble, they telling them they can't camp out on city property.

Assembling and camping are two different things.
 
apdst said:
Assembling and camping are two different things.
Click to expand...

And assembly and protest, being well more important, should be held above "camping" conveniences.
 
Ikari said:
And assembly and protest, being well more important, should be held above "camping" conveniences.
Click to expand...

But, they not being told they can't assemble. They're being told they can't camp. There's the potential to create a bio-hazard in that environment, which could be detrimental to the, "general welfare".
 
apdst said:
But, they not being told they can't assemble. They're being told they can't camp. There's the potential to create a bio-hazard in that environment, which could be detrimental to the, "general welfare".
Click to expand...

They are being told they cannot assemble on public property for certain time periods, which has no restriction on how they can then define those hours. I do not believe that people camping overnight in a park has any detrimental effect of general welfare.
 
apdst said:
Show us in the Constitution where illegally camping out is protected. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't illegally camping out.

What they are doing is peacefully assembling and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

The Constitution said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
They are being told they cannot assemble on public property for certain time periods, which has no restriction on how they can then define those hours. I do not believe that people camping overnight in a park has any detrimental effect of general welfare.
Click to expand...

It is, if people start getting sick, which could potentially spread disease to other citizens. That's why municipalities don't allow people to just run their sewer lines into the road ditch.
 
samsmart said:
Well, they aren't illegally camping out.

What they are doing is peacefully assembling and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

From the OP

A federal judge on Tuesday told police temporarily to stop issuing tickets to Occupy Cincinnati demonstrators camping out in a city park
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
From the OP
Click to expand...

Yes. The legality of the police issuing tickets is in dispute. Because those campers may not be performing an illegal act. And, if not, then they are not assembling there illegally.
 
apdst said:
It is, if people start getting sick, which could potentially spread disease to other citizens. That's why municipalities don't allow people to just run their sewer lines into the road ditch.
Click to expand...

But it's limited in range, it's not a general detrimental effect which could then be ascribed to general welfare. Assuming that what you say is even true. The ability to protest and redress the government must be upheld to its maximum.
 
samsmart said:
Yes. The legality of the police issuing tickets is in dispute. Because those campers may not be performing an illegal act. And, if not, then they are not assembling there illegally.
Click to expand...

There's a city ordinance against camping in the park. i.e. camping in the park is illegal.
 
Ikari said:
But it's limited in range, it's not a general detrimental effect which could then be ascribed to general welfare. Assuming that what you say is even true. The ability to protest and redress the government must be upheld to its maximum.
Click to expand...

No one is telling them they can't protest. They're only telling them they can't protest when the park is closed.
 
apdst said:
There's a city ordinance against camping in the park. i.e. camping in the park is illegal.
Click to expand...

Which may be deemed as unconstitutional since it hinders those protestors' ability to peacefully assemble and to protest the government for redress of grievances.
 
samsmart said:
Which may be deemed as unconstitutional since it hinders those protestors' ability to peacefully assemble and to protest the government for redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

The government tends not to be in operation, at least the people who make the rules, after 10pm.
Plus people camping in a public city park interferes with the right of other people to "peaceably assemble" in the same space.
 
apdst said:
No one is telling them they can't protest. They're only telling them they can't protest when the park is closed.
Click to expand...

So then they are telling them they cannot assemble and protest during times the State has decided that they shouldn't be allow to assemble and protest (there's no restriction on how they define the temporal restrictions). I think there needs to be proper limitation on government intervention of the exercise of rights.
 
apdst said:
There's a city ordinance against camping in the park. i.e. camping in the park is illegal.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the contention is that they are not camping but rather assembling and protesting.
 
apdst said:
There's a city ordinance against camping in the park. i.e. camping in the park is illegal.
Click to expand...

YAY for Guberment intrusion.....when it suits your purpose.
 
apdst said:
Does that mean this same judge can be called upon to stick up for anyone who is cited under this ordinance, from now until eternity?
Click to expand...

When those people are filing a lawsuit based on the ordinance, meet the criteria for a preliminary injunction, and move for one... YES. That's how a common law system works. The judges have to follow the rules. ANY judge should do this.
 
winston53660 said:
YAY for Guberment intrusion.....when it suits your purpose.
Click to expand...

Yay for throwing the law out the window, when it suits your purpose. No doubt the exemption from the law only applies to OWS goofballs.
 
apdst said:
Yay for throwing the law out the window, when it suits your purpose. No doubt the exemption from the law only applies to OWS goofballs.
Click to expand...

Judicial review of laws to ensure the protection and proliferation of the rights of the individual have always been part of the proper checks and balances in the system.
 
apdst said:
Yay for throwing the law out the window, when it suits your purpose. No doubt the exemption from the law only applies to OWS goofballs.
Click to expand...

Laws are open to judicial review. That is the law.
 
Ikari said:
How are the "******s"? They were ordered not to ticket though the proper channels of checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Well, because someone orders you to do something doesn't always mean it's right, or that you should do it.
 
Ockham said:
Well, because someone orders you to do something doesn't always mean it's right, or that you should do it.
Click to expand...

But if the courts say that there is reason to review a law and thus punishment of the law is being temporarily suspended, the police have no rightful action nor force to enforce the delayed law.
 
Ikari said:
But if the courts say that there is reason to review a law and thus punishment of the law is being temporarily suspended, the police have no rightful action nor force to enforce the delayed law.
Click to expand...
The law is still on the books... I understand your point, but because politics has entered into it doesn't mean the law is null and void. You and I both know it may take months or years to overturn a law or to get politicians to amend that law. It also depends on the law...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom