Granted it is not a partisan issue. It is one about which people across the full range of the spectrum of political interests tend to agree... while specific instances in exercise mean the issues are necessarily going to include partisans.
Both parties are willfully enabling policy that requires they are violating the Constitution and our fundamental rights. We saw the same thing before Bush II... in the Clinton Administration... during the WTO demonstrations in 1999, and the link shows a picture of the free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention... and, none of those are consistent with the plain language of the Constitution ? The history also proves they are not compliant even with the limits the interpretation does contain ?
"Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election". [13]"
And, on what other issue do you tend to see Reason Magazine agreeing with ACORN and the ACLU ? So, since that law/policy/practice is NOT consistent with the Constitution... where DID it come from ? I note its origin is coincident with the rise of the WTO... but, of course, neither the speech nor petitions were going to stop that from happening... even though the most obvious bit about the First Amendment seems it should be that when THAT MANY people are THAT PISSED OFF... you should probably NOT decide ignoring them is really what makes the most sense ?
What the outrage on the left and the right reveals is that the process of governing... has become undemocratic... and thus unresponsive. The scam is that "governing by consensus" works not by "including others views" but by excluding the people we don't agree with from relevance in the process... patronizing them to try to make them FEEL relevant only after decisions have been made by meeting to sell them on the decisions... but excluding them from having any real relevance in making them. As a practical matter, since their speech DOES NOT matter in fact... there isn't a point in tolerating being subjected to it ? And, when you do see they've reached the point that they recognize you are irrelevant... there isn't a reason for them to tolerate the "offense" of freedom in expression... so it is excluded.
The Tea Party and the Occupy Movement... both recognize that the issues in the WTO riots... have come to fruition... that the corporations make the rules... so that only they are considered relevant in the halls of power... but, the left will still support a corporation killing turtles or destroying a rancher to install solar panels... if they are "of the left"... or will enable corporations in destroying the economy and our freedom in order to "prevent" fictional "global warming" ? It proves people are gullible... and the "divide and conquer" strategy being operated... works... by exploiting the fiction in the political differences... when both political parties in fact are controlled creatures of the corporate elite... joined in implementing a Fascist regime of anti-democratic governance of, by, and for the corporations.
The real choice... is between attachment to Constitutional principle... or submission to Corporate Fascism.
The Nevada Ranchers... and the WTO protestors... are on the same side... but don't know it.
Also from the Wikipedia link you supplied:
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that " Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression."
Congress shall make no law abridging... means they can say "you are allowed to say whatever you want... at 3AM EST, on the dark side of the moon"... and because the time and place are content neutral... they didn't limit the content... that is not an "abridgement"... ?
The courts have been corrupted... or are incapable of reading the plain text... but, of course, corrupt. Congress shall make NO LAW... becomes... the "Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of [ LAWS DEFINING] time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case"...
My analysis is much simpler. One part. Is there a law that abridges the freedom ? It's a yes or no question. The Constitution says there can't be. There is also a one part analysis I can provide of theirs in fact. Theirs is an unauthorized rewrite of the Constitution to make it say "Congress shall make no law... unless that might prove inconvenient." The required limit on the government the Constitution intends... thus becomes no limit at all... while the "inalienable right" becomes a right to be ignored... and a right to be put in a cage where you can be ignored.
The problem is... the most obvious and most significant impact of that decision is that it requires that no one will agree with it... and that no one will respect that law... or the court that produced it... and no one should.
The decision is a fundamental violation of our social contract.
What you saw occur in Nevada... was a real world contact being made... an interaction showing the SCOPE and EXTENT of the DISCONNECT that now exists between D.C. and the corrupt pontiffs in the ivory towers in Washington... and real people. People DO understand that the basic law is not actually changed when it is improperly re-defined by the court ? Misinterpreting the law or niggling about what the people said when they passed that law... doesn't alter what they said and meant ? The law DOES NOT GIVE us those rights. It recognizes that WE HAVE THEM. The fundamental law doesn't create the rights... instead, it defines FOR THEM a limit they must accept and recognize creates an inability for them to take those rights away from us. When they do so anyway... they don't change the law... they only de-legitimize themselves by ignoring it.
The ruling says... they refuse to recognize those rights we DO HAVE... and refuse to recognize the limits we HAVE PLACED on them... which limits INTEND to deny THEM any right to alter or deny our basic rights ?
|
