Read this:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Then read this:
DENVER — Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing the president’s staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his.
Young and Weise filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver, saying they were ejected shortly after they had arrived in a car that had an anti-war bumper sticker, although they had done nothing disruptive. The suit charged Casper and Klinkerman with violating Young’s and Weise’s First Amendment right to free speech.
Casper and Klinkerman lost their motion for dismissal, and last week their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Young and Weise because the two held views different from those of Bush.
“The president’s right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience,” says the brief.
Now, you can look through the Constitution all you want, but you won’t find any provision that gives the President the power to exclude from public events those who may disagree with him, or the power to “control his own message.” Nor to my knowledge has Congress ever passed such a law granting him that authority, and even if it had that law would be prima facie unconstitutional (for those of you that don’t read Latin, or haven’t been to law school, prima facie is a cute little phrase lawyers like which means “on its face” or “at first sight”, or, to use a more updated translation, “so obvious even Homer Simpson gets it”).
(cont.)
Apparently the lawyers for the brownshirts defendants who ejected Young and Weise from this public, federally funded event are basing their defense on a case from 1992 in which a federal appeals court held that a man wearing a Clinton button could be excluded from a rally for the First President Bush. However, as Weise and Young’s attorney notes, that case involved a private organization, not the federal government:
Martha Tierney, an attorney for the two people who sued Casper and Klinkerman, said Monday the Ohio case does not apply to her clients’ case because the event at the center of the 1992 case was funded by a private organization, the Strongsville, Ohio, Republican Party.
“A private organization is entitled to limit the kinds of speech that the public can have if it comes to attend its event,” Tierney said. “But the government is under a different standard and can’t limit speech just based on viewpoint at a public, taxpayer-funded event.”
Who knew that Bush supporters (and Republicans generally) wanted to privatize the Executive Branch? Then again, it is consistent with their efforts to privatize prisons, education, and even the War on TerrorTM (Halliburton and Blackwater, anyone?). Nonetheless, I hope the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court which is hearing the brownshirts’ defendants’ appeal) swats them down on this crazed attempt to equate the Office of the President with a private corporation. It would be a very dangerous setback to our “freedoms” if we lose the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble, which are set forth in the First Amendment, merely because we disagree with what the President of the United States has to say at a public event.
US Constitution
((Free Speech))
Leslie Weise
It appears that Homer Simpson has a couple federal judgeships. Who’s the judge on this case?
OF course, the President takes two types of trips–political trips, which are reimbursed by the party, and government trips. I’m betting this was the latter.
I don’t know who the trial judge is, but whoever he or she is, that judge rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims Weise and Young made against them. Motions to dismiss are always based on the law, not the facts of the case, which are stipulated to be true for purposes of the motion. That’s why you can appeal a motion to dismiss, because the appeals court is not being asked to determine the facts, only whether a valid legal claim has been asserted in the complaint.
So, the issues on appeal are strictly legal ones. Does the President have the same right to exclude people from a public, tax funded meeting merely based on their views, as private organizations do when they are footing the bill? Does the President (or his designated agents) have the authority under the Constitution to deprive someone of their 1st amendment rights when he makes a public appearance? I think the answer to those questions should be a resounding no.
As for the appellate justices who will be hearing the appeal, the federal appeals courts generally appoint a panel of three justices to hear these cases. rarely does the full appeals court (which can have as many as 15 or so justices) hear a case on appeal. You could probably find out who those three justices are if the Tenth Circuit maintains an online record of pleadings filed. Otherwise, you’d have to call the Clerk of the Court, or go to the Clerk’s office and request that information. Pleadings are a matter of public record except in cases where a judge has issued an order to seal the record.
Ps. The trip was federally funded as was the event. It was held during Bush’s campaign to sell his social security reform package, and was open to the public.
Federal Funding no longer matters, nor do Constitutional decrees regarding the rights of citizens on public property or at public functions.
The entire US government, and by extension the entire geographic space formerly known as “The United States,” as well as allied, subjugated, or not yet subjugated but about to be, territories, spaces formerly known as Planet Earth, are now the private property of Bushco and its stockholders, and they have the absolute right to control speech, action, and other forms of expression known or yet to be devised within those territories.
If people want to speak independently, they will need to find a non-private space in which to do so. I hear the weather is lovely on Venus this time of year. (The Moon and Mars have already been claimed.)
Not baffling if you look at this from the point of view of defendants’ attorneys. As I’m sure you’re aware, Steven, clients don’t want to lose but they feel less bad about it if the attorney puts on a good show, makes a ruckus. This is all part of that. To the client(s), it seems like a battle is being waged and not just a pitiful stalling tactic. (and possibly billable hours?)
That’s what I thought too, when I read about this. I’ll be surprised if the defendants prevail in this case. And THEN I’ll get upset about it.
Face it Steven, this is what a totalitarian government looks like. We’re living in it right now. No baffles. You’re thinking of an America of say, Post-WWII, or a white man’s 1835.
It’s different now, with the 5 years of unitary party control, you get a totalitarian state.
Well my title was intended to be ironic. Hope that came across.
Steven, Dontcha miss Fawn Hall?
Same old, same old. Is it groundhog day? Can’t tell by the climate because that’s changing.
Yep. Not enough enforcing of those unwritten laws, is there?
;0)