US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

[libmom74]

"A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader."

"The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill."

"The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
http://signon.org/sign/president-obama-dont-4.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=1114474

Why is it that crimes against the people always enjoy broad bipartisan support?

[ProSense]

1. No

Congress didn't http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002385100

Whomever is pushing the "anti-protest" frame took a bill introduced in early February 2011 (to update a 1971 law) is spinning it as as anti-OWS, which wasn't launched until September 2011.

[libmom74]

5. You are really

trying to defend the evisceration of the 1st amendment? Wow. Did you actually read the bill? Whether you personally think the timing of what you call an update is suspicious or not try looking at the actual content. What in the content of the new bill are you defending?

[ProSense]

8. No

You are really

trying to defend the evisceration of the 1st amendment? Wow. Did you actually read the bill? Whether you personally think the timing of what you call an update is suspicious or not try looking at the actual content. What in the content of the new bill are you defending?

...I'm trying to "defend" facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=386800

I don't believe in hyping nonsense.

[cynatnite]

16. Thanks for the info. n/t

[G_j]

7. regardless, it now applies to the occupy movement and other protest actions.. nt

[ProSense]

13. Regardless?

It has nothing to do with Occupy. By that logic the existing law from 1971 applies to Occupy. Scary!

[G_j]

14. it's not me

who is scary!

[libmom74]

20. The scary thing

is "democrats" that defend right wing authoritarian legislation.

[jeff47]

29. Yes, it's scary. That isn't what happened here.

Unless you think you think jumping the White House fence is a sacred protest right.

[libmom74]

19. It will most certainly

apply to the upcoming G8 summit in Chicago.

[onenote]

26. Just as it applied to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009

and to the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu last November.

And to the 2004 G8 meeting in Sea Island Georgia.

And pretty much any event that the President or VP has attended since 1971.

I could go on and on...

[jeff47]

42. It already applied to all previous G8 summits, because the previous law was in effect

And the changes to the law would not affect G8 protesters.

So clearly this law prevented any and all G8 protests, right?

Oh wait......

[G_j]

2. here is the bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.347:

Details, Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
2/6/2012--Passed Senate amended. (There are 4 other summaries)

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 17, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:

1/19/2011 Introduced in House
2/11/2011 Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-9.
2/28/2011 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 399 - 3 (Roll no. 149).
11/17/2011 Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
2/6/2012 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
2/27/2012 Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 388 - 3 (Roll no. 73).
3/1/2012 Presented to President.



..more.. information at link..

[Octafish]

61. 3/1/2012 Presented to President

He's a constitutional scholar, you know.
If he signs it, it shows what he believes in.

[slackmaster]

3. The saddest aspect of this is that people will re-elect the same clowns

Over and over.

[jeff47]

30. The saddest aspect is this lie keeps getting re-posted to DU.

The bill does not do what this story claims it does. The authors are lying in order to rile people up.

[onenote]

4. Not this shit again

This phony story has more lives than a cat. HR 347 amends an existing law that dates back to 1971 (and that has been amended several times since then) principally to close a loophole that exempted from the law's coverage the White House grounds and the VP's residence. Since adding in language addressing that loophole in every subsection of the law would be unwieldy, the law was rewritten to come up with a single definition of "restricted grounds" that encompassed all of the areas previously covered by the law plus the WH and VP's residences. It also made a change that clarifies that these offenses are governed exclusively by federal law is consistent with the notion that in these situations the Secret Service, not the local police, are the ones that call the shots (as it well should be).

How little does this change the law? Well, if this bill was vetoed by the president all it would mean is that the preexisting law would stay in effect without the additional protection for the WH and VP's residence (and with the possibility that a local cop might try to bust someone even if the Secret Service didn't think the federal law was being broken).

On edit: a question for the OP: do you even know what the sources that you cite for this story are and how utterly unreliable they are?

[libmom74]

11. Wherever a "protected

person" is will be a no free speech zone. I don't understand how democrats could support this.

[onenote]

21. The reason Democrats, including Kucinich, support this is that it doesn't do what you say.

I'm curious -- which of the following actions do you think you (and any teabagger for that matter) has a constitutional right to engage in:

1. entering into a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted (i.e., not open to the public) area of the White House, VP's residence or a location where someone under secret service protection is visiting

2. engaging in conduct (with intent to disrupt) that disrupts or impedes the orderly conduct of government business or of official function in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise non-public restricted area of the WH, the VP's residence or of a builiding/area where someone protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting (such as engaging in disorderly conduct in order to disrupt President Obama's address to the Barnard College graduating class);

3. engaging in conduct (wiht intent to impede) that prevents anyone from getting in or out of a cordoned off, posted or otherwise non-public restricted area of the WH, the VP's residence, or of a building/area where a person protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting (such as blocking students from attending President Obama's speech to the Barnard graduating class)

4. knowingly engagin in an act of physical violence against any person or property in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise non-public restricted aread of the the WH, the VP's residence (and the grounds of those buildings) or of a building/area where a person protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting (such as attacking Michelle Obama or Jill Biden).

You good with those activities? Because that's what the portion of the bill you are complaining about does (and has done for years except that it didn't cover the WH or the VP's residence).

[Inuca]

24. Facts! Who cares about facts when

the sky is falling?

Just in case:

[libmom74]

25. My complaint is

that the bill is very vague and that it creates a no free speech zone around government officials who don't wish to be bothered by the unwashed masses. Let's start with number one, it goes beyond the White House and VP's residence including any location where a person under secret service protection is visiting. Number two could make it a felony to protest at congressional hearings. Number 3 could be broadly interepreted and make all forms of protest outside of designated "free speech zones" illegal.

[onenote]

27. So when the President attends an event outside the WH, he should be fair game?

The Secret Service shouldn't be allowed to cordone off a security zone that is not open to the public in order to protect the president?

You're okay with teabaggers having unimpeded access to get close to the president whenever he ventures outside the WH?

[libmom74]

31. He (nor any other government official)

should be immune from hearing the public.

"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."

[onenote]

34. So the answer to my question is that you think teabaggers should have unimpeded access to President

Obama whenever he leaves the White House.

I think I'll just say that I disagree and leave it at that.

[jeff47]

35. You're forgetting that key word "peaceably".

Do you think you should be able to climb over the White Hose fence in order to protest? Do you think that's a fantastic idea for teabaggers with assault rifles?

[geek tragedy]

62. There is no right to get close enough to the Presidentto kill him.

Too bad, so sad.

[jeff47]

33. No, it doesn't.

It says you can't protest inside a Secret Service security cordon.

And the "vague" language you are concerned about are from the 1971 law. Has it succeeded in making "no free speech" zones? Funny, there seems to be several stories about Obama and the Republican candidates getting interrupted.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. This bill sucks regardless of whether it is directed at OWS or not.

A 10-year prison sentence for entering an event without an invitation?

[G_j]

10. thank you for pointing out what should be obvious!!!

"This bill sucks regardless of whether it is directed at OWS or not"

[onenote]

12. What do you think an appropriate sentence for crashing a White House event should be?

[libmom74]

18. We should ask these two:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120872735

I think intent should matter, if you show up at an event to peacefully protest then the 1st amendment should apply, if you show up to hurt people that's an entirely different matter.

[onenote]

22. So you'd be fine with a bunch of teabaggers breaking into the residential portion of the WH

to peacefully present the president with a petition airing their grievances?


And for what its worth, I would have had absolutely no problem with the Salahis being charged with a felony for their stunt. None whatsoever.

Unfortunately that couldn't happen under the law as it existed when they crashed the WH dinner. But it would have applied had they crashed a private dinner held outside the WH. And under the amended law, it will now apply to WH state dinners.

[jeff47]

41. The Salahis could not be charged under this law.

They did not disrupt the event, and did not show any intent to disrupt the event. Only to attend it.

[onenote]

45. Actually they could be chargedunder subsection (1):

"knowingly enter[ing] or remain[ing] in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so."

I guarantee that the area where the state dinner was held was an area that was cordoned off, posted or otherwise restricted and that the Salahis, not having a valid invitation to attend, were there without lawful authority (they were there by fraudulent representation).

[jeff47]

48. Eh, possibly.

Subsection 1 is probably the hardest to justify on constitutional grounds.

[onenote]

49. Not just possibly, Certainly.

Time place and manner restrictions are legitimate, especially when they are content neutral. This law doesn't care what someone has to say or even if they have anything to say. The security of the President is a legiitimate and indeed compelling governmental interest that would sustain a restriction against trespassing at the White House or otherwise breaching a legitimate security area. Now that's not to say that a situation might not arise where an overly broad area is designated as a restricted zone, but I am quite certain that any area of the WH -- where, after all, you can't even get in without going through a security check, can be leigitimately cordoned off and that the area where the state dinner was held meets that standard.

[jeff47]

50. Then why weren't they charged?

Subsection 1 of the new bill is basically the same as subsection 1 of the old law. Yet they weren't charged under the old version.

[onenote]

52. Because the WH wasn't covered by the law when the Salahis pulled their stunt.

That's my point. THere was a gap in the law until this recent amendment was passed. They were in the White House without authorization and nothing under the existing law covered simple trespass at the White House. Now it does.

[jeff47]

53. Um, no. There is no gap.

The 1971 law did not disappear. It was still in full force when they pulled their stunt.

[onenote]

55. The 1971 law didn't cover the White House

we actually agree that this bill doesn't make a significant change in the law -- certainly not the type of change the agitators would have folks believe it makes. Rather, the stated purpose for the amendment was to cover the White House and the VP's residence which weren't covered until this amended version was enacted. In fact, here is what the House report accompanying HR 347 has to say on the subject:

"Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752."

By the way, there may well have been other laws that the Salahis could've been prosecuted under, such as a federal law against lying to the secret service and a law that prohibits entry into a federal building by false pretenses. But 1752 wouldn't have applied back then. Now arguably it does.

[jeff47]

57. The White House was most definitely covered when they pulled their stunt.

Last edited Mon Mar 5, 2012, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;

The President was in the White House. He was hosting the party they were trying to get into. So, it was very much "where the President (...) is".

What wasn't covered was the building when the President was not in the White House. So if you jumped the fence when the first family was at Camp David, it wouldn't apply. That's the hole closed by naming the White House.

But under your interpretation, the Salahis were definitely violating 1752.

[onenote]

58. That isn't how the House reads the old language

You are reading it as if it says it covers an area where (1) the president is or (2) where the president will be temporarily visiting. But as the House report clearly indicates, that's not how the secret service or anyone else read it - they read it as only covering places where (1) the president is temporarily visiting or (2) will be temporarily visiting.

And that's why the law was amended -- to make it clear that it covered the White House (both when the president is there and when he's not).

I'm not saying your reading isn't a possibility. Its just not the reading that caused Congress to amend the bill. Again, here is what the House Report says:

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

See: "is temporarily visiting" not just "will be temporarily visiting."

Further confirmation that this is the reading that Congress gave to the old language can be found in this statement by House Judiciary Chairman Smith on the floor of the House:"H.R. 347 ensures that the President, the First Family, the Vice President, and others are protected whether they are in the White House or attending an event in a convention center or meeting hall." In other words, without HR 347, the president et al weren't protected while they were in the White House.

[SpartanDem]

15. IF you have a weapon or hurt someone

a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

[jeff47]

37. Read the damn bill. You are wrong. Because the authors of these links are lying.

The 10 year sentence is not for entering an event without an invitation.

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

You leap the White House fence with a gun, you can get up to 10 years.
You leap the White House fence, pick up a rock and bash someone's face in, you can get up to 10 years.
You leap the White House fence, and do nothing else, you can get up to one year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. They're getting real good at stifling any threat to the system.

[libmom74]

17. I have read

that Romney and Santorum now have secret service protection, so if protestors were the show up at a political event for either candidate they can now be charged with a felony.

[onenote]

23. Well since the law in that regard is the same as it was a week ago, a month ago, and a decade ago

Either you're wrong or no one has ever protested at a political event before.

[libmom74]

28. The law isn't the same, that is

the point. If the law is the same as it has always been why "update" it?

[onenote]

32. for the umpeeth time:

The substantive change in the law was to close a gap in the existing statute that limited its coverage to areas where the president, the vp or any other person protected by the secret service were "temporarily visiting" and thus didn't cover the White House, its grounds or the VP's residence and grounds. For example, the Salahi's little state dinner crashing wasn't a violation of Section 1752 when it occurred because it was in the White House -- had that dinner been held outside the WH, they'd have been facing felony charges.

Because of the way the existing law is written, adding references to the WH and VP's residence to every provision would have been awkward from a drafting and clarity standpoint. Therefore, in order to simplify the law, the various different situations where the law already applied were gathered up together with the WH and VP's residence and referred to in a single term "restricted builidings or grounds" that covered them all without having to repeat them all every time.

That's why.

[libmom74]

36. "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."

Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to “enter or remain in” an area designated as “restricted.”

The bill defines the areas that qualify as “restricted” in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” and “a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential


Securing the Presidents and VP's residence is one thing, outlawing protest at any building or event that they or any other "protected" individual attends is unconstitutional.

[jeff47]

40. K, we'll go call up the Nixon administration and start complaining

Because that's who signed the bill that includes the wording you don't like.

Oh, and you'll notice that the law has not done what you claim it will do, despite being on the books for 40 years.

[onenote]

46. Its only vague if you don't actually read the entire statute

You seem to have overlooked (presumably by accident) the introductory language to the definition of "restricteed buidlings or grounds": "any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area" of the WH, the VP's residence, a building where the President or other secret service protected person is temporarily visiting, or of a building or grounds in conjuction with a an event formally designated as a special event of national significance (a term of art referring to a specific process for designating areas where the Secret Service is in control over security measures established by President Clinton in 1997).

So its not the entire building and grounds unless the perimeter of the building or grounds is "cordoned off, posted" or other clearly "restricted" from public access.

And it doesn't outlaw protest. It outlaws disorderly conduct. You can engage in disorderly conduct as a matter of civil disobedience but just like most such activities, if you're trespassing or otherwise breaking the law, you can get arrested for doing so and the first amendment doesn't protect you.

You can quote the First Amendment a dozen more times and its not going to change the fact that the law in this country has long provided that the right to free speech isn't absolute and certainly doesn't mean that those entitled to secret service protection are not entitled to it when they are outside the WH or the VP's residence.

[jeff47]

38. They updated it because they did not include the VP's residence

Political candidates with Secret Service protection have been covered by this law since 1982.

You are arguing that no one has been able to protest a political candidate since 1982. That's obviously not true.

[MineralMan]

39. Even Dennis Kucinich voted for this.

It would be better if DUers read the actual bill, instead of "stories" from media outlets like the ones linked in the OP. Actually knowing what was voted on seems to be worthwhile, I think.

[jeff47]

43. This lie: 8 recs. 43 responses (at the moment)

The truth? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002385100) 6 recs, 4 responses

*sigh*

(Not saying the OP is lying. She quoted articles that are lying)

[MineralMan]

44. Here, on two pdf pages, is the entire content

of the bill being referenced.

Clearly, the stories at the links in the OP are incorrect, and deliberately so.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

[Uncle Joe]

47. Because too much attention has been paid to the liberal/conservative points

of the political spectrum, as a result not nearly enough focus given to the libertarian/authoritarian aspects and I do believe this is purposeful.

"Keep looking over there" at the culture wars fought between "left and right" while the corporate media continuously enables "moderate" or "centrist";" aka: right leaning or "conservative" far right wing authoritarians to power and we're headed down a surefire pathway to full blown fascism.

The belief that government should be run like a business is a De Facto frame of authoritarianism and the people need to recognize this dangerous concept; whereupon government doesn't govern or serve the people so much as rules them in the same way an employer does an employee.

You don't work for your self or the public good so much as working for the mega-corporations even if indirectly and their middle man, enforcer; that being the government.

"Why is it that crimes against the people always enjoy broad bipartisan support?"

Because the partisans, no matter which side left or right are first and foremost authoritarians.

So long as the people keep myopically fighting that liberal/conservative box, the authoritarians have won half the battle because the corporate media only need demonize the liberals or left wing for the most radical corporate supremacists to dominate.

Thanks for the thread, libmom.

[mvd]

51. What has me concerned is..

What are they talking about in regards to events with national significance? That sounds overly broad. Since even Kucinich voted for it, I'll reserve judgment.

[jeff47]

54. Events of national significance has a specific legal definition

http://www.secretservice.gov/nsse.shtml

The DHS secretary declares such an event. The Secret Service is put in charge of security at the event, the FBI is put in charge of intelligence and hostage rescue at the event, and so on.

It's basically federalizing the security of such an event. It's used for things such as the G8 conference. It has to be declared in advance, so you couldn't surprise people with such a designation.

[Uncle Joe]

56. The meaning of that term will become continually expansive.

Just as the "War on Drugs" has expanded with the continuous erosion of the Bill of Rights only to be bolstered by the eternal "War on Terror."

As technological capabilities increase so will that of the police state to counter any real, perceived, imaginary or manufactured threat.

I don't believe it so much as one bad decision, but the long term, legions upon legions of cuts and compromises that will extinguish our liberty.

[onenote]

59. Can you give an example of the type of event it might be extended to cover?

Here is a complete list of the events that have been given this designation since 1998:


World Energy Council Meeting 1998
NATO 50th Anniversary Celebration NATO 1999
International Naval Review (OpSail) 2000
World Trade Organization Meeting World Trade Organization Meeting 1999
State of the Union Address 2000
International Monetary Fund Spring Meeting 2000
Republican National Convention 2000
Presidential Inauguration 2001
Presidential Address to Congress 2001
United Nations General Assembly 56th session 2002
State of the Union Address 2002
Super Bowl 36 2002
Winter Olympics 2002
World Economic Forum USA Meeting 2003
State of the Union Address 2004
G8 summit 2004
State funeral of Ronald Reagan 2004
Democratic National Convention 2004
Republican National Convention 2004
Presidential Inauguration 2005
State of the Union 2006
State funeral of Gerald Ford 2007
State of the Union 2007
State of the Union 2008
Democratic National Convention
Republican National Convention 2008
Presidential Inauguration 2009
G-20 summit 2009
State of the Union 2010
State of the Union Address 2011
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit 2011

apart from a post-9/11 period where the super bowl and the olympics were covered (not exactly prime targets for protesters), its been used consistently for political conventions, inaugurations, state of the union addresses, and international conferences. What sort of events do you fear it being extended to cover in the future?

[Uncle Joe]

66. An authoritarian government could/would designate a major national strike along the lines

of Solidarity's experience in Poland as an "event of national significance," on the grounds it was disruptive to the economy.

The same could be said for protests if they had major national imipact, just as the Occupy Movement was beginning to have, laws were enacted to eliminate their primary tactic of protest.

Here in Tennessee, they just passed a law prohibiting camping on the state grounds aimed at the Occupy movement, the Tennessee Constitution and First Amendment be damned.

These laws were targeted directly at their protests.

[Uncle Joe]

69. Your list doesn't seem to have the BP oil spill in it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=389621

[onenote]

70. that's because the BP oil spill wasn't declared an NSSE

Your confusion is understandable. The BP oil spill was not declared a special event of national significance (AKA NSSE). It was named a "Spill of National Significance" under an unrelated provision of the environmental protection act.
See: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/300-323-spills-national-significance-19822254

The purpose of declaring an event an NSSE is to put the secret service in charge of security measures. The purpose of declaring an oil spill a "spill of national significance" is allow federal authorities to take charge of clean up measures -- it has nothing to do with the secret service (who were not running around the gulf during the spill).

[jeff47]

64. There is an explicit definition in the law for that term

So it's not something that can creep without constantly changing the law.

[Uncle Joe]

67. Yes and money used to mean money and persons used to mean people, but the law

changed their interpretation of those definitions.

The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically ratified to protected the people, that being disenfranchised minorities, The Civil War was supposedly fought over it, but in real practice it has been used far more often to empower corporations over states and the people.

Old boss meet the new boss.

The law changes with the times and judges that were appointed by the politicians of the day.

[jeff47]

73. That happens because there isn't an explicit definition in the law

If there was an explicit definition of "free speech" that didn't include money, and required that the speaker be human, then that wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, in 1787 it was understood that rights were only for humans so the founders didn't write it down.

We've learned a few things since the 1700's about how specific we have to be in documents such as the Constitution. That's one of the reasons we don't recommend that people exactly follow ours.

But back to this term - it has a specific definition. Can't creep away from that via the judicial branch.

[Uncle Joe]

74. What is the legal definition of "special event of national significance"? n/t

[onenote]

81. Here is some helpful background info on special events of national significance (aka NSSEs)

http://web.docuticker.com/go/docubase/24972

[Uncle Joe]

82. From what I can tell there are only two people that determine what that definition means.

"Major events that are considered to be nationally significant may be designated by the President — or his representative, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — as National Special Security Events (NSSE). Beginning in September 1998 through February 2008, there have been 28 events designated as NSSEs. Some of these events have included presidential inaugurations, presidential nominating conventions, major sports events, and major international meetings. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating, planning, exercising, and implementing security for NSSEs, and was designated as the lead agency in P.L. 106-544. This report provides information on USSS legislative authority for NSSEs, NSSE designation funding and training, and NSSE funding. This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is some helpful background info for you from a thread by Atticus.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8288204

when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality –
judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/101904.html

The person quoted in this article was an aide to George W. Bush, but, it seems to me, he speaks for the majority of Republicans: "reality" is what they decide it is and, once they decide, actual verifiable facts are unnecessary. Further, if convenient, Republicans can simply change reality by announcing it.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Octafish]

60. Wonder what an 'event of national signifcance' would be?

Woodstock?

[onenote]

63. post 59 lists every such event

Since 1998 31 events have been designated as a special event of national significance (also known as a national security special event), including numerous state of the union addresses, the repub and Democratic national conventions in 2004, and 2008, state funerals of ford and reagan, the meeting of the UN General Assembly, and various other international summits. (In a short-lived burst of post-9/11 paranoia, the 2002 super bowl and the 2002 olympics also were designated. What do most of these events have in common? The attendance of the president, the VP or the major party candidates for president and vp. And thus even if the statute didn't cover "special events of national significance" it sill would have covered each of those events (except possibly the super bowl and olympics) because of the presence of the president at the event.

[jeff47]

65. Try google. It has a definition in federal law.

Here's the first result:
http://www.secretservice.gov/nsse.shtml

[Uncle Joe]

68. Or a Solidarity type strike or major protest under the premise that it

adversely affects the national economy.

Just like the BP oil spill.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/homeland_security_declares_oil.html

"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano just told reporters at the White House that the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast has been declared an event of "national significance," which she said will allow the federal government to drawn on resources from across the nation to help try to head off a natural disaster as the slick nears shore."

I'm not arguing that major environmental or economic calamities shouldn't or couldn't be designated as "nationally significant," I'm just pointing out for the other posters that the definition and language is quite fluid and not fixed to just wherever the President and VP are staying or times of terrorism.

[Octafish]

71. Thank you, Uncle Joe!

There's always wiggle-room when it comes to shutting down dissent.

Of course, it's in response to our enemies, such as they are.

BTW, it looks like BP got off the hook: BP Looks to Move on After Deal.

[SidDithers]

72. wsws.org AND rt.com. LMFAO...

Doubling down on the awesome sourcing.

Sid

[jwirr]

77. What the hell is wrong with the senate? I understand how it got through the house but the senate?

[onenote]

79. Probably because the Senate thinks that protecting the WH and VP residence from unauthorized entry

is a good idea.

Please try to understand that if this bill was defeated, the only signficant difference it would make in the law is that 18 USC 1752 would not cover intrusions into the WH and VP's residence. The rest of the law, as originally enacted in 1971 and amended on several occasions since then, would simply remain in effect.

Here is the Congressional background statement on the bill:


BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The United States Secret Service provides protective services to the President, the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, visiting heads of state, and others. This protection covers not only the White House and its grounds but also any where a protectee may be temporarily visiting. The Secret Service also provides protection at events designated as `a special event of national significance.'

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752.

The bill also clarifies that the penalties in Section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element. The bill makes other technical improvements to the existing law. In the 111th Congress, the House approved similar legislation (H.R. 2780) by voice vote on July 27, 2010.

[jwirr]

85. That does make a difference. I would not want protesters doing either of those things.

[girl gone mad]

78. Thanks for posting this.

Of course, the usual authoritarian boot-lickers are here defending it. No surprise there.

[onenote]

80. I think you mis-typed something

I think you meant to say "the usual reality-based fact-checkers are defending it."

But I'm open to persuasion. So tell me what the effect of defeating HR 347 would be on the current state of the law?

[G_j]

83. ACLU Sacramento and others roporting on this

Goodbye, First Amendment: House Bill HR 347 will make protest illegal

http://www.aclusac.org/node/423

~~~~~~~~~~

Congress Votes to End Protest | AlterNet

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/.../congress_votes_to_end_protest/

~~~~~~~~~~

News Articles for H.R.347: Federal Restricted Buildings and

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h347/

Now known as the “anti-Occupy law,” H.R. 347 makes it a federal offense to “ enter or remain” in an area designated as “restricted.” As RT.com (via the ACLU ...

~~~~~~~~~~

H.R 347 could be making the First Amendment illegal.

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-philadelphia/h-r-347-could-be-making-the-first-amendment-illegal

(just a sampling)

[Uncle Joe]

84. Under an authoritarian, "we create our own reality" administration, they could, all they need do

is determine that major strikes or protests were "special national security events," I've asked this question before but no one has a shown me a legal definition for that term.

From what I can tell all it takes is for a President or head of Homeland Security to make that determination.

[woo me with science]

86. K&R The one percent own both parties.