Monday, March 5, 2012

The tree of liberty needs watered...

"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:
“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'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.

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.

6 comments:

  1. "that our troops will do more than the absolute minimum, if that."

    Then there was Kent State.......

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was the National Guard, and that was also when the military was treated worse than they are now by the civilians, and better than they are now by the government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You put a frog in a pan of hot water and he'll jump out. But, if you put a pan of warm water and turn the heat up, he'll sit there till he boils to death. That's exactly what's happening in America today. Our Constitutional Rights are being dismantled slowly, behind closed doors, and the American people are going to be like the frog very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know, us Guardsmen aren't all bad...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're not--but in the Kent State debacle, you had young men with less training than their brothers in Vietnam, angry over the insults to them and their brothers in Vietnam, and likely frightened by the sudden flash over into mob violence. Boom: "Four Dead in Ohio."

      I doubt the regular military would have reacted the same, and the police definitely wouldn't have gotten the bad press.

      Several of my best friends are Guardsmen. Several more are vets. Actually, I don't have very many friends who haven't served, come to think of it. I know what you guys (regular Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines and National Guard and Coast Guard alike) go through, and I know what you guys are capable of.

      Killing harmless, peaceful protesters isn't something y'all are capable of. Dealing with a clear and present danger that is holding a weapon, improvised or not, quickly and with prejudice, is.

      Delete