• 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!

Naomi Wolf explains our constitutional right to peaceful assembly

Temporal said:
I'm glad someone got the point.
Click to expand...
Please join me in this thread as it is currently dealing with the same issue.... I welcome and discussion/criticism of my opinions. The fact that people are so willing to abandon our rights for convenience issues quite frankly disturbs the hell out of me
 
Swit said:
Please join me in this thread as it is currently dealing with the same issue.... I welcome and discussion/criticism of my opinions. The fact that people are so willing to abandon our rights for convenience issues quite frankly disturbs the hell out of me
Click to expand...

[video]http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155213/sand-idea[/video]
 
Swit said:
Constitutionall protected right Trump local public nuisance ordinances last time I checked, willy-nilly or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I look forward to you blasting Mayor bloomberg's anti gun rights jihad in NYC then
 
TurtleDude said:
I look forward to you blasting Mayor bloomberg's anti gun rights jihad in NYC then
Click to expand...
You can indeed sir... Bloomberg would have to have a preponderance of evidence that somehow gun ownership in and of itself somehow poses some sort of public safety hazard (I have to admit yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or "HIGHJACK" on a plane does in fact raise issues in my mind regarding free speech limitations). But by and large.... if it does not pose a public safety threat AND is enumerated in the Constitution I personally don't understand how any law (Federal, State or Local) can trump that.

So yes, without further information you can consider me on your side of the NY Gun Debate.

EDIT: Am I wrong to assume you are on the side of 2nd amendment protections? Just re-read you post and I guess I kind of assume (due to the use of the wor Jihad) that we share the same side on this one.... That guns should be allowed to be retained by the people
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
You can indeed sir... Bloomberg would have to have a preponderance of evidence that somehow gun ownership in and of itself somehow poses some sort of public safety hazard (I have to admit yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or "HIGHJACK" on a plane does in fact raise issues in my mind regarding free speech limitations). But by and large.... if it does not pose a public safety threat AND is enumerated in the Constitution I personally don't understand how any law (Federal, State or Local) can trump that.

So yes, without further information you can consider me on your side of the NY Gun Debate.

EDIT: Am I wrong to assume you are on the side of 2nd amendment protections? Just re-read you post and I guess I kind of assume (due to the use of the wor Jihad) that we share the same side on this one.... That guns should be allowed to be retained by the people
Click to expand...

Bloomberg has engaged in a conspiracy to violate federal gun laws and constitutional gun rights. Its a rare combination
 
Naomi Wolf taught me that it is okay to feel anger, and to love myself unconditionally.
 
TurtleDude said:
Bloomberg has engaged in a conspiracy to violate federal gun laws and constitutional gun rights. Its a rare combination
Click to expand...
Anything in particular I should be looking for as I research this or would "Bloomberg NYC 2nd Amendment suffice"?
 
LuckyDan said:
I'm still working on my self-confidence, but I am at peace with my ambivalence.
Click to expand...
Well, being able to come to terms with conflicting emotions is definitely a start. I would like to point to the fact that do in fact have a post to like ratio of over 66% if that helps at all.
 
Catawba said:
This was the most important lesson I learned in government class. It is a shame more people didn't take government class to learn what makes Democracy work.
Click to expand...

I shudder to think of the crap you were fed in your government class by some ivory tower never had a real job in his life lib scum prof.
 
LuckyDan said:
Naomi Wolf taught me that it is okay to feel anger, and to love myself unconditionally.
Click to expand...

LOL

That aside I didn't watch the video. No way could I stomach Olbermann for that long. From what I gather from others concerning her arguement though, I agree with her. Despite her failure to make a man out of Gore I've read her and respected her views even when I disagreed with them in the past. I thought Fire with Fire was an interesting read.

No way should anyone have to get a permit to excercise their rights. Hopefully someone takes this far enough to get these laws overturned.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I shudder to think of the crap you were fed in your government class by some ivory tower never had a real job in his life lib scum prof.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that Democracy can't work without active participation by the citizens?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Do you disagree that Democracy can't work without active participation by the citizens?

It's called voting.
Click to expand...

Yes, voting and the right to peacefully assemble and protest, you disagree that a democracy can't work without these means being exercised?
 
1Perry said:
LOL

That aside I didn't watch the video. No way could I stomach Olbermann for that long. From what I gather from others concerning her arguement though, I agree with her. Despite her failure to make a man out of Gore I've read her and respected her views even when I disagreed with them in the past. I thought Fire with Fire was an interesting read.

No way should anyone have to get a permit to excercise their rights. Hopefully someone takes this far enough to get these laws overturned.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Supreme Court has said otherwise. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that the rights laid out in the Constitution are not absolute, but rather should be weighed against the Imminent lawless action test. If a police officer believed this protest to be an imminent precursor to lawless action, then he was within his duty as a public servant to arrest her. Whether or not his judgement was sound is up to the courts to decide.
 
Nick2253 said:
The problem is that the Supreme Court has said otherwise. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that the rights laid out in the Constitution are not absolute, but rather should be weighed against the Imminent lawless action test. If a police officer believed this protest to be an imminent precursor to lawless action, then he was within his duty as a public servant to arrest her. Whether or not his judgement was sound is up to the courts to decide.
Click to expand...

Yes, a police officer can arrest you for nearly any reason he can come up with. What I complained about was having to get a permit to excercise your constitutional rights.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, voting and the right to peacefully assemble and protest, you disagree that a democracy can't work without these means being exercised?
Click to expand...

Tea party was peaceful assembly and protest, occupiers have been anything but that, huge difference. The old apples oranges thing.
 
1Perry said:
Yes, a police officer can arrest you for nearly any reason he can come up with. What I complained about was having to get a permit to excercise your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

You only need a permit to exercise those rights in a public square, where the risk of imminent lawless action is higher. If you wish to assemble with your friends on your back porch, the SCOTUS says "go right ahead."

However, I do agree with you. But the problem is that the SCOTUS has determined that "make no law...abridging the freedom of..." doesn't mean what you and I think it should mean. As far as the courts have determined, abridging those freedoms are OK based on needs for public safety and other things. Based on Cox v. New Hampshire, the SCOTUS has determined that our Constitutional Right to assemble is actually controllable by the states, and they can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on assembly for the public safety. Therefore, assembling in a public space without a permit is not necessarily a Constitutional right.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Tea party was peaceful assembly and protest, occupiers have been anything but that, huge difference. The old apples oranges thing.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that non-violent civil disobedience nullifies the validity of a protest?
 
Ok well - she needs to make up her mind.

ON one hand she's talking about protesting - peacefully.
ON the other hand she says "I was jailed for standing on a corner outside an event to which I had been invited."

So was she there to protest or was she there per invite to a non-protest event?


"I refused to obey an unlawful order"
To this: since when do citizens EVER have the right to interpret the lawfulness of a police officers request and play 'judge' right there?

What people tend to do is *do something* and when they feel they're not doing anything wrong per their blunt interpretation of amendments and laws they will argue with an officer that they are absolutely right and the officer is absolutely wrong . . . and then they complain when the officer doesn't step aside and let them do as they wish.

What if cops went along all the time and stepped aside every time someone says "hey - I've got a right to be here" or "hey - I've got a right to do this" . . . :shrug: We'd have chaos. . . Every time a potential robber was seen with a gun it would just be ignored because "hey - I've got a right to own this firearm and you don't have the right to question me!" . . . I mean - come on. don't people realize why the law leans on the side of the enforcement and not the generic public?
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Ok well - she needs to make up her mind.

ON one hand she's talking about protesting - peacefully.
ON the other hand she says "I was jailed for standing on a corner outside an event to which I had been invited."

So was she there to protest or was she there per invite to a non-protest event?


"I refused to obey an unlawful order"
To this: since when do citizens EVER have the right to interpret the lawfulness of a police officers request and play 'judge' right there?

What people tend to do is *do something* and when they feel they're not doing anything wrong per their blunt interpretation of amendments and laws they will argue with an officer that they are absolutely right and the officer is absolutely wrong . . . and then they complain when the officer doesn't step aside and let them do as they wish.

What if cops went along all the time and stepped aside every time someone says "hey - I've got a right to be here" or "hey - I've got a right to do this" . . . :shrug: We'd have chaos. . . Every time a potential robber was seen with a gun it would just be ignored because "hey - I've got a right to own this firearm and you don't have the right to question me!" . . . I mean - come on. don't people realize why the law leans on the side of the enforcement and not the generic public?
Click to expand...


Did you just equate a peaceful protester standing on a sidewalk to potential robber seen with a gun???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom