You'll not find a more committed advocate for the Second Amendment than attorney Peter Mancus. Peter has some plain speaking for those who arrested Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war message.
I know there are many who think she's a lunatic and a traitor. That's not the point, as Voltaire reminds us. There are others who say she offended decorum by making a statement where it was inappropriate to do so.
Consider: Would you want someone ejected for wearing an American flag pin on their lapel? A visible cross or Star of David? An NRA tie tack? A red AIDS ribbon? An AFL-CIO button?
Who is the arbiter of acceptable expressions of affiliation, and where do they derive Constitutional authority? Even the Capitol police now admit they had no lawful power to act as they did. Remember--she was not holding a banner, being disruptive or otherwise infringing on the rights of anyone else.
Arguing that the floor of the Capitol is no place for political expression reminds me of that great comedic line from Dr. Strangelove:
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. It's the War Room.
I think another woman was tossed out for wearing a Support The Troops shirt or some such thing. Probably shouldn't have removed either of them...but then again, should it be within the power of the government to impose a dress code in their own chambers? I tend to think so, but I doubt that carries much weight in the Halls of Power =).
ReplyDeleteThere are certain unwritten rules by which we all abide, and to ask people attending the State of the Union to follow some reasonable rules (e.g., nothing showing affiliation and no t-shirts) ONLY for that ONE event and ONLY for a certain period of time is *not* unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteNo one permanently removed Cindy's right to free speech.
However, I do think the actions by the Capitol police were excessive (i.e. arresting and charging her).
In the end it's about respect by both sides and showing a little class. Just like when, out of respect and tradition, warring factions put down their swords to allow their enemies to mourn.
Cindy's t-shirt would be no different than pro-war conservatives wearing clothing with controversial statements during candlelight vigil at the gravesite of Cindy's son.
Who's the arbiter? We, the people.
There is a law that says it's illegal to protest inside the Capitol building. I would say it wasn't unreasonable to view each woman's t-shirt as a form of protest or demonstration.
ReplyDeleteSheehan and Beverly Young both displayed some pretty poor taste in clothing wearing that to the State of the Union address. Sorry.
And while I agree that she should have been asked to leave, and not manhandled out of there, I'd like to know how long she's going to continue dancing in her son's blood to promote her political agenda?
Anytime she does anything questionable or insane, she whips out the memory of Casey and hides behind it as if to say, "I'm entitled to be an asshat, because my son died in Iraq!"
UGH!!
This is fun. I hope more people weigh in.
ReplyDeleteAs far as being disrespectful, I can think of numerous politicians who disrespect "we the people" in those chambers every time they open their yaps...
So far, though, no one has argued that Sheehan's arrest was a lawful act--which I believe is the point of Peter's outrage...I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does.
Yes, there are plenty of those politicians, and yet, we the people keep on voting them into power. I'd say the fault lies with "we the people" as they're just giving the politicians carte blanche to treat them like ass.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how lawful the arrest was. I know it is against the law to protest inside the Capitol. But I also think they went way overboard with the way they treated her.
As much as I dislike her, and as much as I think her little show was in bad taste, she has the right to act like a moron.
I think you hit on a key point Nicki--her right to be an ass...without infringing on anyone else's rights.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but wonder what poses a greater danger to the republic--someone quietly calling attention to themselves in an (arguably) inappropriate forum, or the State squelching dissent.
I'd love to see someone come up with their version of what the appropriate dress code should be. I think that exercise would quickly demonstrate all the loopholes and squabble points...
Ties for gentleme? Scratch foreign dignitary guests who don't wear them by custom.
Skirts for ladies? Tell that to NOW.
No t-shirts, period? What about a short-sleeved pullover blouse?
Gotta go to work.
Coincidentally, no tie needed. It's "Casual Friday."
:-)
I don't like Sheehan, I don't like her t-shirt. I do like the shirt Ms. Young wore. Both those sentiments are totally irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteThey have as much right to expression as anybody as long as by their behaviors they do not infringe the rights of others. "By their behaviors", not by their opinions are they to be ejected or accepted, nothing else.
Their t-shirts were no more offensive or non-offensive than all the applauding and standing ovations or the refusals to do so. And barring any overt acts on either of their parts damn sure less interruptive and obtrusive.
It behooves a free people to assume that others will behave properly until they are proven wrong. We will never know if either or both would have behaved because the Capitol Police screwed up. They punished lawful constitutionally protected behavior in a bid at prior restraint before an act of illegality was committed. Is that what we want? A policing community that can decide what you were going to do and take action you , though you have yet to commit any act and are only guilty of what they think you thought about doing.
Do you really want that?
Not germane to the point, but to remove an excuse advanced for the police overreaction,it is not the government's own chamber. It is our own chamber. The rules of decorum to be abided are or should be the same as anywhere else polite company congregates. Violators of that decorum can be excused. But, that requires an overt act on the part of the violator, not their holding or not holding an unpopular opinion and for damn sure not what somebody else thought they might, maybe, possibly, perhaps do.
Don't we have enough laws now that punish potential behavior without waiting for the actual behavior? You guys better think that one over. Slavery lies down that road.
As far as "No one permanently removed Cindy's right to free speech." Sure they did, if they get away with it.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone other than the speaker determines when he may express himself and suffers no consequences for this breach of the constitution he has permanently removed right to free speech. That he allows you to speak when, where or on topics not important to him is called permission. Being granted permission is not the same as exercising a right.
Straightarrow-
ReplyDelete"Violators of that decorum can be excused. But, that requires an overt act on the part of the violator."
That overt act was the removal of clothing to display a controversial message (whether you agree with it or not) designed to call attention and distract those present so as to disrupt the purpose of the event. Call it a banner t-shirt if you want.
"When someone other than the speaker determines when he may express himself and suffers no consequences for this breach of the constitution he has permanently removed right to free speech."
If that is so then exercise your right to vote during election. We vote for candidates who establish laws and rules (or amend them) that we believe are within our best interests and remain within the bounds of the constitution. If we believe those laws and rules are unconstituional, we challenge them in the courts or exercise our right to vote again and put into place someone else.
David-
Appropriate dress code? How about this...wear what you would wear to a funeral or a formal wedding, based upon your own nation's traditions and customs.
Whether or not I like Sheehan and her revolting antics is beside the point. There is such a thing as decorum, and she stepped WAAAY over the line. I wouldn't wear a tank top or a bikini to a Congressional session. I wouldn't even wear blue jeans and a T-shirt. It's unprofessional, and I know this. But that is irrelevant as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do know is that protesting is illegal in the Capitol. I suppose the law kind of makes sense if you have loud, obnoxious, screeching wackos disrupting the meetings going on. It could be argued that the Capitol police were enforcing the law. If we don't like the law, we need to work to change it, but it does exist.
I don't like the heavy-handed approach. It was unnecessary. But other than that... It could truthfully be argued that she was in violation of federal law.
Ok, let's take it from the top.
ReplyDeleteJason said: "That overt act was the removal of clothing to display a controversial message (whether you agree with it or not) designed to call attention and distract those present so as to disrupt the purpose of the event. Call it a banner t-shirt if you want."
What do you do when someone decides cheering, applauding the speaker, or rolling their eyes in disparagement, or breaking into loud applause and standing ovations every thirty seconds, or applauding against the speaker (as in the SS comment) is determined to be intended to draw attention and it disrupts the event. Nobody can deny either charge. That is the exact purpose of those overt demonstrations. To deny it would be dishonest.
Why would anyone want to deny it? It is perfectly logical that someone with a viewpoint wants to draw attention to it and it is guaranteed in our constitution that doing so is legal and unpunishable, providing that attention does not deprive others of their rights. Even if their viewpoint is illogical and totally disagreeable. I submit that the machinations of the political electees in that chamber were far more disruptive than either ejected woman. So if it is disruption you claim as justification for violation of the first amendment all those senators and congressmen would have to sit on their hands and be silent throughout. Otherwise, what we are saying is that we will allow speech we approve of, but banish practioners of opposing viewpoint. Where lies the liberty or honor in that? How do we claim a superior outlook if we act just as tyrannically as any despot that silences his critics? Do we shoot all Democrats to shut them up since they acted in ways disrespectful to the president? If not, why not? Some of us have already agreed we are not obligated to suffer the rights of others.
We can call it a banner t-shirt? Are you around the bend. She can force no one to look at or react to her shirt, therefore she is not transgressing the rights of others. Had either of them unfurled a banner, then it would have been impossible for others to ignore her/them, that would be transgressing their rights and obstructing their view, the same as if they talked or shouted and caused others not to hear.
Jason said: "If that is so then exercise your right to vote during election. We vote for candidates who establish laws and rules (or amend them) that we believe are within our best interests and remain within the bounds of the constitution. If we believe those laws and rules are unconstituional, we challenge them in the courts or exercise our right to vote again and put into place someone else."
So you are in agreement with the gun grabbers? The law is the law and unalienable means we can deny rights that the citizen must fight for each and every time we violate those rights as long as we have a law that says differently in contradiction of the constitution? Not only no, but HELL NO!
No matter who I vote for it is understood that none of them have the right to violate the constitution. It doesn't matter a damn if the majority vote for someone that wants to do so. Majority does not trump unalienable right. Not unless we want to be France.
Nikki said: "What I do know is that protesting is illegal in the Capitol. I suppose the law kind of makes sense if you have loud, obnoxious, screeching wackos disrupting the meetings going on. It could be argued that the Capitol police were enforcing the law. If we don't like the law, we need to work to change it, but it does exist."
NYC has a law against ownership of guns, the argument you have advanced legitimizes their violation of the second amendment.
The same potential dynamic applies, the citizen might violate the constitutional laws against murder and mayhem. So by your take on the first amendment, this is ok? No, the law doesn't kind of make sense in D.C. anymore than it does in that arena. If you have screeching, obnoxious wackos disrupting the meetings that is the violation of a sensible and ......and constitutional law. Because then you have an act that deprives others of their rights and that is rightfully disallowed, just as stifling peaceful dissent is disallowed.
I thoroughly detest Sheehan, but if I let that emotion color my definition of a right I have harmed every man, woman, and child in this nation by establishing the precedent that rights don't count if someone is nervous that someone else might do something.
Should all the men on this board go to jail for child molestation. Most probably we all have penises. What if someone is afraid we might misuse them? Does that justify stripping us of our freedom? You can destroy every right for everybody if that is acceptable modus operandi.
Don't anybody dare say it is not the same thing, it exactly is, just different dialog to develop the same plot.
Well said, straightarrow.
ReplyDeleteVerily, verily, straightarrow.
ReplyDelete"NYC has a law against ownership of guns, the argument you have advanced legitimizes their violation of the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe same potential dynamic applies, the citizen might violate the constitutional laws against murder and mayhem. So by your take on the first amendment, this is ok? No, the law doesn't kind of make sense in D.C. anymore than it does in that arena. ..."
I have not advanced their violation of the Second Amendment in any way, shape or form. Their laws are obviously unconstitutional, and the only way to change those laws is through the courts, through the votes or armed rebellion. Each one of those choices has consequences. There is a law that prohibits protesting in the Capitol. Is it a violation of our First Amedment rights? Sure. There may be a very good reason for this law, but nonetheless it's a limitation on our rights. It exists. If you choose to protest, you have made that choice and you are not free from the consequences of that choice -- in this case being removed from the premises or arrested.
"If you choose to protest, you have made that choice and you are not free from the consequences of that choice -- in this case being removed from the premises or arrested."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true. You have described the "real world" results perfectly.
And that seems an entirely appropriate basis for protest, which seems to me what this post is all about...:)
But Nikki, that is not the whole story.
ReplyDeleteIf we agree that the law in this case is an infringement of a constitutional right, is it not counterproductive to allow the violtators to set the terms under which we may attempt to thwart those violations. Isn't that sort of like handing an armed robber your gun, because he doesn't want you to have one, while you are trying to stop him from robbing you?
We don't need to rely solely on convincing our trespassers to cease on grounds of principle. We are allowed to punish them. In fact, it is our duty to do so. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers make this apparent. There are many things that can be done prior to armed rebellion, although armed rebellion should always be considered a viable option.
A citizen can try for a true bill from a grand jury , elections can be swayed, civil suits can be brought, and criminal charges pursued (this is very difficult as prosecutors are loath to be seen taking the side of justice over cops when the two are in conflict), and last but certainly not least, is the fact that the petit jury has the right and the constitutional power to judge the law as well as the facts of the case, and the duty to find against the prosecution when they believe the law violates the constitution.
Despite a judge's instructions to the jury, the law is always on trial. A judge that instructs his jury differently is lying. Not mistaken, lying. He knows it, but relies on the trust the ignorant have placed in him to be fair and honest, to get away with it.
My point is there are many things that can be done before we shoot the bastards. Saying "The law is the law, and if we don't like it we must change it, by convincing office holders extant or electing new ones." isn't high on the list, when that law is, itself, an illegality (unconstitutional).
It falls below the bar of responsibility to allow the trespassers the power to decide if they will do right. Dammit! They already proved they wouldn't at that point.
Left something out.
ReplyDeleteNikki said: "If you choose to protest, you have made that choice and you are not free from the consequences of that choice -- in this case being removed from the premises or arrested."
My question to you is this. Isn't that just exactly backward? Should it not be the violators of constitutional rights (you agreed about the violation), that suffer consequences? Did they not make a choice to disobey the supreme law of the land? Did they not make a choice to visit harm on a citizen well within that law because found it inconvenient to support freedom and unalienable rights?
It appears to me cavalier to say, 'sure demand your rights, but you must accept that you will suffer for it.' Why would our attitude not envision suffering for the violators of those rights instead of the practitioners?
I think that Straightarrow has this pretty well covered and covered correctly at that.
ReplyDeleteJason: " There are certain unwritten rules by which we all abide...”
True enough, but in the case of the government there are written rules that those in government are not only expected to abide by, they are bound by oath to so.
One of those rules is Article I of the amendments to the u.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech...". Note that this is not optional -- it is a requirement. Absent the situation where such a law in its effect would protect the rights of others, Congress is prohibited from passing any such law. For my part, I fail to see how anybody could reasonably claim that the wearing of a tee-shirt bearing a political message by party A constitutes an infringement of some right of party B (there is no “right” to not be offended).
As far as “obeying” unconstitutional “laws”, I defer to the writings of judges from a time when the Constitution was worth the parchment it is written on:
* 16AmJur 2nd, Sec. 177: “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
* 16AmJur 2nd, Sec. 178: “Constitutional law. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. An unconstitutional law is void. It imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. An unconstitutional law cannot repeal or supersede any existing valid law. An unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing valid one. The general principles stated above apply to the Constitution as well as to the laws of the several States. Moreover, the construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with the Constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had been enacted in conflict therewith.”