• 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!

D.C. Sued over Black Lives Matter Painted on City Streets

BlueTex said:
Judicial Watch can certainly advocate for naming a street after them but the city is under no obligation to oblige.
Click to expand...
That wil be a question for a judge to decide.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
BlueTex said:
The city isn't allowing other groups, the CITY painted the street.
Click to expand...

Oh, then I guess President Trump can put whatever messages he wants on America's streets. Good principle you've got there.

I apologize for acting like the First Amendment applies to speech I don't like too. Your way is better.
 
Last edited:
Irredentist said:
Why wait til court? Let's argue right here. Or are you scared you'll lose?

What is political about saying "Black Lives matter"?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry I thought legal issues were decided in courts. Did I miss something? Is it "some guy on the internet decides" now?
 
They paint lines on the road for a reason. I thought it was a great slap in the face to the President to paint Black Lives Matter in D.C., but everyone has a bad case of copycatism lately. I like traffic helps, like center lines, lane lines, etc. JUST BUY A BUMPER STICKER!
 
Mason66 said:
When the law says the police cannot be prosecuted for most actions while in uniform, that wouldn't have the affect you want.
Click to expand...

Wait, so...they're allowed to use excessive force? That's the first I've heard about that....now I'm left wondering what all the hullabaloo is about...and why those cops have been charged at all. In fact, why bother having the term "excessive force"? If they're allowed, that's pretty meaningless, isn't it?
 
ObamacareFail said:
I really don't give a **** about Klayman. Why are you so obsessed with him?
Click to expand...

I'm not obsessed. I'm just talking about the subject of the thread. The man who founded the organization that this thread is about is racist. That's not an obsession. You're being rude claiming that it was.
 
ObamacareFail said:
What blood? Blacks getting killed in confrontation with cops? How about the blood of blacks killed in the inner cities by other blacks? The blacks killed in confrontations are almost exclusively justified, just as they are with whites killed in confrontations with cops. In 2019, roughly 55% of those killed by cops were white. Less then 30% were black. Why not look at the root of the confrontations(hint-poverty) rather then pushing the false narrative that all of those killed in confrontations with cops are murder victims?
Click to expand...

When people talk about the fact that blacks are killed disproportionately to white people by cops in America, they're talking about a per capita number. Have a look.

• Police shootings: rate by ethnicity U.S. 2015-2020 | Statista

Also, black on black crime has nothing to do with your nation's desire to fix what's wrong your cops, but if you want to aid in that issue separately, I'm sure that two problems can be worked on at the same time, and I bet they'd be happy for your help, seeing as you seem to have a sincere and honest concern.
 
Digger said:
I'm not obsessed. I'm just talking about the subject of the thread. The man who founded the organization that this thread is about is racist. That's not an obsession. You're being rude claiming that it was.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you failed the topic of the thread. That's not it.
 
jotathought said:
Sure they can, and some of their actions can open opportunities for others to express themselves. If the government rejects First Amendment opinions, viewpoints and expressions based on the precedent they set .. it is wrong. This tactic was not presented for a vote .. it was ordered by the mayor through executive channels.
Click to expand...

There is no First Amendment right - or any other Amendment for that matter - to use a public city street to paint a message on it. The people who can repaint city streets are the duly elected government of that municipality.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, legally speaking, you can sue anybody for anything.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. A judge can dismiss it if he believes its without merit but generally speaking yes you can sue and i would argue you should sue if two parties can not find an amicable resolution.

If the judge does not order either that the mayor allows the message or orders the other messages removed, it will open up a firestorm response.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Mason66 said:
What would have happened if the Mayor had painted "Blue Lives Matter"?

What would the reaction be here?
Click to expand...
Progressive would of gotten angry and threaten her.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
There is no First Amendment right - or any other Amendment for that matter - to use a public city street to paint a message on it. The people who can repaint city streets are the duly elected government of that municipality.
Click to expand...

So the mayor of DC (or any other city) can use the streets for expressing opinions, viewpoints and expression in support of something they support while denying its citizens from doing the same? So the mayor of Keystone, South Dakota could paint an opinion on the street in support of Donald Trump's July 3 rally? Lakewood, Colorado in support of the bakery? Phoenix, Arizona in support of gun rights?
 
jotathought said:
So the mayor of DC (or any other city) can use the streets for expressing opinions, viewpoints and expression in support of something they support while denying its citizens from doing the same?
Click to expand...

Yes.

So the mayor of Keystone, South Dakota could paint an opinion on the street in support of Donald Trump's July 3 rally?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Lakewood, Colorado in support of the bakery? Phoenix, Arizona in support of gun rights?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
BlueTex said:
The judge is going to tell the city what they can paint in their roads ?
Click to expand...
If the judge allows one and not the other, it will cause big trouble.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes.



Yes.



Yes.
Click to expand...

Cite? What law do you imagine gives city mayors the right to put whatever messages they want on streets? Ignoring the First Amendment?
 
trouble13 said:
If the judge allows one and not the other, it will cause big trouble.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Like super big trouble of just regular big trouble?
 
diz said:
Cite? What law do you imagine gives city mayors the right to put whatever messages they want on streets? Ignoring the First Amendment?
Click to expand...
The same reason why Mayors/City governments are able to change the names of streets, commission statues and parks, re-zone areas, and countless other Executive functions.

The first amendment does not apply here. The public does not have a right to paint the street, but the City does.
 
OlNate said:
Wait, so...they're allowed to use excessive force? That's the first I've heard about that....now I'm left wondering what all the hullabaloo is about...and why those cops have been charged at all. In fact, why bother having the term "excessive force"? If they're allowed, that's pretty meaningless, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I am sorry you can't understand a simple idea that they have immunity in most situations.
 
trouble13 said:
Progressive would of gotten angry and threaten her.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

On the Vinwiki You Tube channel they put pictures in while the guest is telling a story and for 2 seconds in one picture they showed a Mustang race car that had "Blue Lives Matter" on the rear bumper and the channel got various messages demanding that video be taken down.

They ignored those people, of course, but the fact that people would even send those messages is, just sick.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The same reason why Mayors/City governments are able to change the names of streets, commission statues and parks, re-zone areas, and countless other Executive functions.

The first amendment does not apply here. The public does not have a right to paint the street, but the City does.
Click to expand...

So you would agree that Trump can have whatever message he wants painted on America's streets? And since the supremacy doctrine generally goes Federal>State>Local in the law, he can order a mayor or governors' messages removed from streets? If Trump orders "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" be painted on DC streets you would agree he can because painting messages on streets "Is just stuff government does"?
 
diz said:
So you would agree that Trump can have whatever message he wants painted on America's streets?
Click to expand...

No, of course not.

And since the supremacy doctrine generally goes Federal>State>Local in the law, he can order a mayor or governors' messages removed from streets?
Click to expand...

That's not how the law works. The Federal government has no "supremacy" over local government.

If Trump orders "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" be painted on DC streets you would agree he can because painting messages on streets "Is just stuff government does"?
Click to expand...

Trump has no authority over the City of DC. He is not part of DC's government.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, of course not.



That's not how the law works. The Federal government has no "supremacy" over local government.



Trump has no authority over the City of DC. He is not part of DC's government.
Click to expand...

Actually the Federal government has complete authority over DC. It's literally in the Constitution that way. They can repeal the local government completely if they feel like it.

You want to try again?
 
diz said:
Actually the Federal government has complete authority over DC. It's literally in the Constitution that way. They can repeal the local government completely if they feel like it.

You want to try again?
Click to expand...
The federal government has significant power over DC, particularly in terms of local laws.

The President, on the other hand, has no power over DC.
 
jotathought said:
So the mayor of DC (or any other city) can use the streets for expressing opinions, viewpoints and expression in support of something they support while denying its citizens from doing the same? So the mayor of Keystone, South Dakota could paint an opinion on the street in support of Donald Trump's July 3 rally? Lakewood, Colorado in support of the bakery? Phoenix, Arizona in support of gun rights?
Click to expand...

As awful as it sounds, I see nothing preventing anyone from doing that who is in a municipal position of power. But common sense and restraint normally rule the day so things like that are just hypotheticals rather than reality.

I think a candidate for office might make a reasonable case if an incumbent mayor tried to have his name plastered over the streets of his city but that would be only a possibility. Normal self control and restraint govern the practice and it is really NOT a problem.
 
BlueTex said:
Like super big trouble of just regular big trouble?
Click to expand...
Make fun all you want now because its highly unlikely the courts wont rule in favor of judical watch

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom