Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[Azrael23]

left and right are phony divisions. We all know nothing changes in the world of the big banks.

Oooh but communism hates the banks....

Thats why they were funded by them

Anyway as for cindy, how stupid can they get. Surely they realise arresting her will only make things worse.

I wonder how many people think "serves her right, she should have stuck to her free speech zone" lmao

FREE SPEECH ZONE?!!!

 

[krtek a houby]

I wonder how many people think "serves her right, she should have stuck to her free speech zone" lmao

FREE SPEECH ZONE?!!!

Ok, I'm well outta the loop. The hell is a "free speech zone"?

 

[The Old Sarge]

Surely the House is itself a "guest" of the USA and its people, and should therefore abide by its rules i.e. the Bill of Rights.

Or are you anti american too?

Try to keep up, Chilango. The discussion is about something that happened in congressional chambers ... where each house makes, by our constitution, its own rules. Their house, they're the "hosts." Any non-member is a guest while in congressional chambers. No debate, just the rules.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Yuwipi doesn't make a habit of it, but if you trawl through Rogue Yam's short and sordid history of posting on this site you'll find that he does make a habit of it, in spades.

So yeah, she "gets a pass".

That's not double standards, that's elementary content analysis.

Nice of you to indicate where you stand though, thanks.

Nice of you to explain.

Now bite me.

 

[The Old Sarge]

When courts decide these issues they usually use two tests.

One is a balancing test. This test determines the priority of rights when there is a conflict between different sets of rights. To pass this test a law/rule has to be neccessary to furthering some compelling government interest. Notice the word "compelling" because that is important. The government must have a compelling reason to abrogate a person's rights. In this case, it is the unsightliness of the T-shirt is the government's reason for prohibiting it. Unsightliness is not a compelling interest.

One is a rational relation test. The prohibtion must be rationally related to that a governmental interest. Prohibiting something that millions of people do every day and causes harm to no one is not rational. If I went to someone's house and they demanded I remove my shirt, I wouldn't consider them a rational person whose demands need complied with.

The rule fails on both counts in this case.

The court (judicial branch) has nothing to do with the rules set down by how each house of congress (legislative branch) conducts its business. Have you actually read the constitution, or are you stuck on the Bill of Rights?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Clearly, activist citizens are just a nuisance to legislators and may interfere with the lucrative business of representing their true constituency of paying sponsors.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Conservatives always decry the nanny state making decisions for them, but when it comes to decide what to wear to the House then they applaud nannydom. It isn't rational.

It's not nannydom! READ the constitution. It's about who gets to make the rules for congress. You keep harping on the constitution and I really thinnk you know far less about it than you purport.

Here's a hint:

Article I
Section 5
second paragraph

 

[The Old Sarge]

I hate those too, but I wouldn't prohibit them. Sometimes freedom is unsightly and a bit crass.

Did I say I'd prohibit them? lol

I simply said I'd like to strangle the jackasses that dream them up and the bigger jackasses that wear them.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

The court (judicial branch) has nothing to do with the rules set down by how each house of congress (legislative branch) conducts its business. Have you actually read the constitution, or are you stuck on the Bill of Rights?

The courts have jurisidiction to settle questions of law with regard to the relationship between the government and the people. Article III, Section II.

BTW, You are just repeating yourself. You didn't really address the point.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Did I say I'd prohibit them? lol

I simply said I'd like to strangle the jackasses that dream them up and the bigger jackasses that wear them.

Please explain to me the difference in your mind between those ribbons and a T-shirt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nice of you to explain.

Now bite me.

No thanks, I swore off eating invertebrates years ago.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Face it. Citizens with political views to express are a real problem. They get in the way of lucrative political business and interfere with the the media agenda necessary to deliver on the requirements of those who pay for politicians lifestyles. Fortunately, there are police and anti-terror spooks to deal with these inconveniences, in order that the real business can continue.

Isn't freedom and democracy and wonderful thing?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Did I say I'd prohibit them? lol

I simply said I'd like to strangle the jackasses that dream them up and the bigger jackasses that wear them.

Would you get thrown out of the State of the Union address if you showed up wearing one?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Of course, while police and anti-terror laws are extremely convenient for protecting politicians from criticism, they don't seem to be terribly good at preventing pissed off citizens from detonating themselves on public transport.

Still, President Bush is safe from embarassing t-shirts and Tony Blair is safe from heckling at his conference and that's the main thing eh?

Where would we be if activist citizens (the non-explosive ones) could embarass politicians?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Of course, while police and anti-terror laws are extremely convenient for protecting politicians from criticism, they don't seem to be terribly good at preventing pissed off citizens from detonating themselves on public transport.

Still, President Bush is safe from embarassing t-shirts and Tony Blair is safe from heckling at his conference and that's the main thing eh?

No it doesn't.

Free and open discussion tends to prevent terrorism. Its largely people who feel disenfranchised who become terrorists, at least at the foot soldier level.

The OKC bombing is an example of this. You have a segment of the american population who has been losing income for years. You have a group of law-makers who have only contributed to their problems. Instead of focusing on the issues faced by the common person, they aid corporate farming with huge subsidies. The result is some crazy blowing the shit out a federal building.

 

[rogue yam]

I guess you have no idea what goes on in the Canadian or British Parliaments, between the govt and the Opposition...

Fine. I was talking about adding unelected spectators to the mix. If the people get tired of the antics of their representatives, they can elect new ones.

 

[rogue yam]

Come to think of it, the owners of the House, ie 'you the people', should have some rights in that House as well. Those guys in suits sitting in the chairs are only the caretakers there on your behalf, aren't they?

The Representatives are there to do the job they are elected and paid to do. The Constitution grants them the right to set their own rules of operation. If we the people decide we don't like the rules they've set, we can petition our current legislators or elect new ones to change those rules. The current rules limit the ability of unelected, self-appointed spectators to interrupt and detract from the people's business. I'm fine with this. (It helps that I've got a good understanding of the Constitution, and I don't want the government disrupted.) If Cindy Sheehan, or any other American feels differently, they know what they need to do. Mob rule is for savages.

 

[rogue yam]

The courts have jurisidiction to settle questions of law with regard to the relationship between the government and the people. Article III, Section II.

The courts interpret laws and decide whether those laws violate the Constitution. The Constitution specifically assigns to each chamber the authority to set their own rules. Previously on this thread you claimed (falsely) that the Supreme Court had ruled against House rules in defense of the First Amendment. You got called on it and couldn't back up your errant nonsense, so you shut your yap for a brief, but pleasant time. Now you are back making this same ludicrous, unsupportable claim. It is past time for you to once again stuff a sock in it, ma'am.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Because of course, the pomp of the imperial presidency must be protected from women in controversial t-shirts. Heavens, if controversial protest t-shirts were allowed then the very fabric of democracy might be undermined and the politicians revenue streams might be interrupted. Hell, it might even make it microscopically more difficult to start any more stupid pointless wars.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Like I said earlier, your british 'no protest' zone around parliament
is as bad if not way worse than this.

In Congress, it's merely an informal dress code. In UK, it's the law of the land.

 

[rogue yam]

...the pomp of the imperial presidency must be protected from women in controversial t-shirts.

You know as well as I do that there is no limit to what angry, self-righteous lefties will do to impose their will on others. If t-shirts are allowed, the next leftie through the door will be doing something more. On and on, ad infinitum. That's a dead certainty.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You know as well as I do that there is no limit to what angry, self-righteous lefties will do to impose their will on others. If t-shirts are allowed, the next leftie through the door will be doing something more. On and on, ad infinitum. That's a dead certainty.

It's only a matter of time before they're burning draft cards. Wait....that was a different war.

 

[rogue yam]

It's only a matter of time before they're burning draft cards. Wait....that was a different war.

We no longer have the draft.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We no longer have the draft.

I know, thus the comment about a different war.

Didn't they burn bras on the steps of congress also?

 

[The Old Sarge]

The courts have jurisidiction to settle questions of law with regard to the relationship between the government and the people. Article III, Section II.

BTW, You are just repeating yourself. You didn't really address the point.

The point you are trying to make avbout the courts and congress's rules is totally moot. Without a constitutional amendment, something the courts have absolutley zero to do with, Article I, Section 5 stands.

I keep repeating it because you keep failing (refusing?) to see it.

 

[The Old Sarge]

... and besides, it was you that first brought up the constitution.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Please explain to me the difference in your mind between those ribbons and a T-shirt.

None. Except in this debate I'm simply talking aobut congress's authority to make its own rules in its own house.

I think the ribbons are rediculous and the vast majority of people that wear them are laughable.

That does not mean I think they don't have a right to do so. I have a right to be bugged by it.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Johnny,

If one showed up in the halls of congress with one of those ribbons on, I doubt anybody would think anything of it. Why? Touchy-feely bullshit. And everybody knows the ribbons only "show how much you care."

 

[fela fan]

While cindy sheehan wasn’t welcome at bush’s speech party, this man was:


"Turki al-Faisal was settling into his seat inside the gallery. Faisal, a Saudi, is a man who has met Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants on at least five occasions, describing the al Qaeda leader as "quite a pleasant man." He met multiple times with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Yet, unlike Sheehan, al-Faisal was a welcomed guest of President Bush on Tuesday night. He is also a man that the families of more than 600 victims of the 9/11 attacks believe was connected to their loved ones' deaths."


Pretty much sums up the kind of man bush is, and the kind of leadership that the US has these days. These sorts of men, bush and faisal, are extremely nasty sorts and belong to each other. As do the likes of cheny rumsfeld perle rice etc etc and the saudi royal family. What a partnership eh!!!


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-32.htm

 

[nino_savatte]

Like I said earlier, your british 'no protest' zone around parliament
is as bad if not way worse than this.

In Congress, it's merely an informal dress code. In UK, it's the law of the land.

Really? IIRC, there is a similar zone of sorts around Capitol Hill.

What about Nixon ringing the White House with troops in the 70's?

Another point scoring exercise from our canadian 'friend'.