Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[Yuwipi Woman]

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.

I did not claim that Cohen v. California regarded rules in the House. Learn to read. If Cindy Sheehan choose to challenge the rule the Courts would decide the issue using the two methods I outlines previously. I realize you didn't read this post, as you are incapably of understanding basic english. I guess thats why you're so keen on trying to make others be quiet. The reality is, you don't value speech in any form, except possibly you own yammering.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

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.

I think you are the one missing the point. Cindy Sheehan could take this to court. If they can decide who the next president will be as they did in 2000, they can decide a rules issue. They would decide this with the rules I posted previously. I doubt that she would do this as she is probably estastic over the free press they gave her.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Here, Rogue Yam, something just for you:

http://www.starfall.com/

 

[The Old Sarge]

If Cindy Sheehan choose to challenge the rule the Courts would decide the issue using the two methods I outlines previously.

Since Ms. Sheehan is decidedly NOT a member of congress, she has no legal standing when it comes to house rules. Sheesh. When are you going to be able to separate the branches of government and see that the constitution overrides law? The courts would never even entertain a motion from Ms Sheehan concerning house rules, let alone allow her to actually bring a suit. SHE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN THE MATTER!

 

[The Old Sarge]

I think you are the one missing the point. Cindy Sheehan could take this to court. If they can decide who the next president will be as they did in 2000, they can decide a rules issue. They would decide this with the rules I posted previously. I doubt that she would do this as she is probably estastic over the free press they gave her.

It's become painfully obvious you know almost nothing about our constitution, Yuwipi. Even less about how it controls and impacts the operation of the three branches of our government. Trying to explain to you is like handing a flashlight (torch) to a blind person.

 

[nino_savatte]

Since Ms. Sheehan is decidedly NOT a member of congress, she has no legal standing when it comes to house rules. Sheesh. When are you going to be able to separate the branches of government and see that the constitution overrides law? The courts would never even entertain a motion from Ms Sheehan concerning house rules, let alone allow her to actually bring a suit. SHE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN THE MATTER!

In which case, the dress code should not apply to her.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Since Ms. Sheehan is decidedly NOT a member of congress, she has no legal standing when it comes to house rules. Sheesh. When are you going to be able to separate the branches of government and see that the constitution overrides law? The courts would never even entertain a motion from Ms Sheehan concerning house rules, let alone allow her to actually bring a suit. SHE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN THE MATTER!

Actually, a House member would have a more difficult time establishing legal standing because of the Political Question Doctrine.

The Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases on the constitutionality of house rules. It has also said that the ability to make rules does not except the House from the rest of the constitution. One case involved the use of filibuster. Some briefs that I have seen on the case said that a judicial nominee who was rejected because of a fillibuster could appeal to courts because they had fulfilled the requirements for legal standing.

The legal definition of standing are that a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. There has to be

(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest

(2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct,

(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

 

[The Old Sarge]

In which case, the dress code should not apply to her.

Wrong. In which case, everytime she enters the halls of congress, she is a guest and the rules most decidedly DO apply.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Actually, a House member would have a more difficult time establishing legal standing because of the Political Question Doctrine.

The Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases on the constitutionality of house rules. It has also said that the ability to make rules does not except the House from the rest of the constitution. One case involved the use of filibuster. Some briefs that I have seen on the case said that a judicial nominee who was rejected because of a fillibuster could appeal to courts because they had fulfilled the requirements for legal standing.

The legal definition of standing are that a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. There has to be

(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest

(2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct,

(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

And who brought all those suits, Yuwipi?

 

[nino_savatte]

Wrong. In which case, everytime she enters the halls of congress, she is a guest and the rules most decidedly DO apply.

How so? Are you seriously suggesting that this proviso is enshrined in the Constitution? Baloney.

It doesn't say much for democracy American-style does it?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

It's become painfully obvious you know almost nothing about our constitution, Yuwipi. Even less about how it controls and impacts the operation of the three branches of our government. Trying to explain to you is like handing a flashlight (torch) to a blind person.

It's become painfully obvious you know almost nothing about the judiciary. Even less about how it functions in the everyday world. Trying to explain to you is like telling Rogue Yam how find his ass with both hands.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

And who brought all those suits, Yuwipi?

These people brought one suit:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/about.shtml

Any citizen may become a member. If a special interest group can establish standing on House or Senate rules, then a lone citizen can as well. I'll admit that Cindy Sheehan might not be able to get standing, not because citizens can't challenge the rules, but because she may not be able to establish sufficient injury since they released her immediately.

 

[The Old Sarge]

How so? Are you seriously suggesting that this proviso is enshrined in the Constitution? Baloney.

It doesn't say much for democracy American-style does it?

For the absolute last time ...

Article I

Section 5

paragraph second:

"Each House shall determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ..."

Their "proceedings" include anything and everything that goes on in their respective chambers.

 

[nino_savatte]

For the absolute last time ...

Article I

Section 5

paragraph second:

"Each House shall determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ..."

Their "proceedings" include anything and everything that goes on in their respective chambers.

But do these rules actually specify the attire that should be worn by visitors - this is what I am trying to establish. Not whether they determine their own rules - that's a foregone conclusion. Isn't there some sort of public gallery in Congress for visitors (as there is here)? Surely they are not allowed into the chamber. I know of few 'democracies' where this is the case.

 

[rogue yam]

In which case, the dress code should not apply to her.

You have missed the boat. Wave good-bye.

 

[rogue yam]

I did not claim that Cohen v. California regarded rules in the House.

This is precisely what you claimed by implication in Post #42, as I have pointed out repeatedly. Your error would be clear to you were you not blinded by your hysteria.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

You have missed the boat. Wave good-bye.

That must be what god said when you tried to get into the line for brains.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

This is precisely what you claimed by implication in Post #42, as I have pointed out repeatedly. Your error would be clear to you were you not blinded by your hysteria.

I'm glad you've finally admitted that you can't read properly. At least now you can get some help.

 

[nino_savatte]

You have missed the boat. Wave good-bye.

Ah, it's rogue spam with another ill-thought out remark.

Go fuck yourself, troll boy.

 

[davekriss]

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.

What is it with the "you know as well as I do therefore my unsupported, ludicrous assertion is true" argumentative technique? You know as well as I do that that is transparant as hell, and such fallacious technique wins you no debate points. Am I to assume you come here not to win debate but merely to disrupt? Isn't that the definition of "troll"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What is it with the "you know as well as I do therefore my unsupported, ludicrous assertion is true" argumentative technique? You know as well as I do that that is transparant as hell, and such fallacious technique wins you no debate points. Am I to assume you come here not to win debate but merely to disrupt? Isn't that the definition of "troll"?

Word.

 

[rogue yam]

What is it with the "you know as well as I do..." argumentative technique?

It is the nature of leftists to lie and to play dumb. Therefore it is necessary for we Conservatives to tell you lot repeatedly to cut the crap. In the present case, a poster was pretending that the issue at hand was "t-shirts; yes or no". Now, while Cindy Sheehan's current protest was via t-shirt, the real issue, as is obvious to all, is whether Congress has the authority to regulate political speech by visitors to its chambers. The poster to whom I was responding was dishonestly trying to cloud and destroy the debate rather than to address substantively the issues at hand. So I told him, in effect, to cut the crap. Now, my question to you: Why do you need me to explain this to you? Are you playing dumb, or being dumb?

 

[davekriss]

It's amazing how little the Right posting on this thread seems to know about the incident, law, and decorum.

This, from the Gainer press release (available here ):

Mrs. Sheehan was charged Tuesday night with Unlawful Conduct after she displayed a T-shirt with an anti-war message while in the House Gallery. Subsequently she was arrested and transported to USCP Headquarters for processing.

As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. The USCP also asked Mrs. Beverly Young, to leave the gallery because of a T-shirt she was wearing. Mrs. Young did not return to the Gallery so there was no need for further police action. Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol. The policy and procedures were too vague," said Chief Terrance W. Gainer. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

So, despite all this posturing about rules the House is free to make for behavior within the confines of the public building in which it conducts the business of State, and all the posturing about what is in and not in the Constitution, we see Terrance Gainer, DC Police Chief, former Police Chief of the State of Illinois and no disruptive liberal, admit that overzealous officers went too far in enforcing their interpretation of an unwritten policy (nothing more than a polite, informal rule of decorum).

Will Old Sarge and sweet potato say Gainer is wrong? That the Police Chief doesn't know what he's talking about? No, instead there is explicit Constitutional grounds to put Cindy in handcuffs and drive her off the Hdqtrs several blocks away? Or was this just business as usual, police in our police state snuffing out expression of dissent?

Funny, the Police never carted anyone out of the House for wearing either yellow ribbons or little flags on their lapels. I guess it's OK to selectively enforce when this "unwritten rule" is enforced. Message supports the military-industrial-political-death-machine? OK, you're in. Message critiques said machine? Book 'em, Dano!!

So obvious, righties!



(On edit: Forgot to say, emphasis added in quote above. Conveniently legalistic sweet potato will grasp on to that point and use it to discredit any truthful assertion in my post. It's the fallaciously rightist way to argue.)

 

[rogue yam]

It's amazing how little the Right posting on this thread seems to know about the incident, law, and decorum.

You are being an ass. Your point has already been responded to on this thread. What did you think of the response already given? Do you need for me to scroll back and find the particular post and then spoon-feed it to little baby scrumpkins? Hmmm?

 

[TAE]

It is the nature of leftists to lie and to play dumb. Therefore it is necessary for we Conservatives to tell you lot repeatedly to cut the crap.

"rogue yam, born of the 4th of YOU-LIE !!!"

 

[davekriss]

It is the nature of leftists to lie and to play dumb. ... Now, my question to you: Why do you need me to explain this to you? Are you playing dumb, or being dumb?

More fallacy from sweet potato. It just doesn't end, does it? I will only assume you do it intentionally and not through some cognitive defect beyond your control.

First, it is NOT the "nature of leftists to lie". Hardly. It is the nature of corrupt, immoral people to lie, regardless where they fall on the political spectrum. For example, the Bush Regime about the threat Iraq presented to the U.S. when wrongfully manufacturing consent for war. Another example, when the Bush Regime advertised the costs for their Medicare Drug Benefit scheme. And another example, when a President wanted to hide from public a sexual dalliance had with an intern within the White House. However, what do each of these lies tell us about the underlying corruption and immorality of each perpetrator? Bush lies, people die; Clinton lies, his wife cries.

I do NOT agree with you that it is better, more efficacious, more upstanding, or any other rationale you have to restrict non-disruptive speech in the House during the SOTU. Rather than explicate, I leave you with these words (just for fun)...

It is my contention that civil disobediences are nothing but the latest form of voluntary association, and that they are thus quite in tune with the oldest traditions of the country.
-- Hannah Arendt

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr

You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
-- Malcolm X

You must be the change you want to see in the world.
-- Mohandas K Gandhi

Now. Or never.
-- Henry David Thoreau

 

[rogue yam]

I do NOT agree with you that it is better, more efficacious, more upstanding, or any other rationale you have to restrict non-disruptive speech in the House during the SOTU.

Fine, but this is completely beside the points that you have raised on this thread today.

 

[davekriss]

You are being an ass. Your point has already been responded to on this thread. What did you think of the response already given? Do you need for me to scroll back and find the particular post and then spoon-feed it to little baby scrumpkins? Hmmm?

So, are you, Mr. Police State himself, saying that the very accomplished Police Chief does not know what he's talking about? That he's just a lefty, out of control spewing lies left and right?

Or is Gainer correct when he says the Police incorrectly carted Sheehan off? That they overzealously applied an unwritten rule when they made the judgment to cuff her and take her to headquarters, denying her the right to silently (and thus without disruption to scheduled proceedings) make her statement of dissent about Bush's illegal war?

Is this what you believe? Non-disruptive dissent should be denied out of reverential respect for a President who lied us into war?

Sheehan says she would've covered up (kept her jacket on) if they had asked. Her intention was not to disupt but merely make a statement. Luckily for us, despite your side, she succeeded. I don't watch TV, but I understand the event was trumpeted all over broadcast and cable news. Her statement was made, and to a much wider audience than would've been possible if she was left alone. So thank you, yammie, pass on my kudos to your side for the good work they've done for us.

 

[rogue yam]

So, are you... saying that the very accomplished Police Chief does not know what he's talking about?

<snip>

...I understand the event was trumpeted all over broadcast and cable news.

Again, this point (Grainer's statement) has already been addressed on this thread. Reply to what was said or else fuck off.

BTW, Cindy's antics got minor play not at all disruptive to the President. And you might want to ask yourself a little question: Is Karl Rove sorry, going into an election campaign, that the Democrat side of the largest issue before our country is being carried by Cindy Sheehan? (Keep in mind that she was placed in the gallery by a Democrat Congresswoman from California.) Do you really think that in a choice between Pres. Bush and Mother Sheehan, the American people are going to side with her? If so, you know little about America.

 

[davekriss]

You are being an ass. Your point has already been responded to on this thread. What did you think of the response already given? Do you need for me to scroll back and find the particular post and then spoon-feed it to little baby scrumpkins? Hmmm?

It has been responded to with error and fallacious argument. So, pumpkins, you'll have to scrape together a better argument.