"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." U.S Constitution, Amendment I. (emphasis mine)And in a new resolution, quietly passed, but not yet signed into law:
I'm getting a little tired of all the lawyers in Washington, D.C., that are demonstrating a horrifying lack of reading comprehension, or else are willfully ignoring the rules by which they are permitted to operate by the people they serve.“Whoever knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions…”By failing to include the term “willfully,” the statute apparently changes the definition of Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code in such a way that one only has to be in a restricted area — with or without prior knowledge of that fact — to violate the law. This is arguably a change required in the mens rea (state of mind) necessary to commit the crime covered in the new statute.
So if you plan to protest at the next Obama, Romney or Santorum speech, you could unwittingly violate the statute and be thrown in jail for standing in a place the Secret Service deems specially protected.
I somehow strongly doubt that, should it come to the absolute worst case scenario (i.e., our troops deployed against our civilian citizens), that our troops will do more than the absolute minimum, if that.
They take their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution a lot more seriously than do the political class.