Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
40. Did
Tue Mar 6, 2012, 03:03 AM
Mar 2012

"But why is it being changed now after all these decades?"

...you miss this:

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.

There is nothing sinister there. The update first passed the House in 2010. It was re-introduced in 2011.
Sounds like more Ron Paul RW nonsense to gin up those of us on the left. FLAprogressive Mar 2012 #1
Rec'd for facts treestar Mar 2012 #2
K&R. Facts are good...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #3
Thank you for those facts SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #4
"An Act: To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752." joshcryer Mar 2012 #5
It's ProSense Mar 2012 #7
agreed SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #70
Yup... SidDithers Mar 2012 #71
kick SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #6
HAPPY HORSESHIT unionworks Mar 2012 #8
Facts: ProSense Mar 2012 #9
Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #10
I see ProSense Mar 2012 #11
Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #12
what are you, like 12? dionysus Mar 2012 #14
ah, over 20,000 unionworks Mar 2012 #18
you may continue providing me fre entertainment... carry on... dionysus Mar 2012 #51
I Just Want To Know How Much Of The Constitution We Have To Shred In Order To Win... WillyT Mar 2012 #19
Wait ProSense Mar 2012 #21
Wow... Fake Ignorance...Usually Called "Disingenuousness/Intellectual Dishonesty" WillyT Mar 2012 #24
Wow ProSense Mar 2012 #26
I really ProSense Mar 2012 #15
here is the reality unionworks Mar 2012 #16
Well, ProSense Mar 2012 #17
Oh, PLEASE unionworks Mar 2012 #20
Are you ProSense Mar 2012 #22
you are dodging unionworks Mar 2012 #23
Why ProSense Mar 2012 #25
see comment #27 unionworks Mar 2012 #28
Actually, ProSense Mar 2012 #29
have fun doing double duty unionworks Mar 2012 #30
You too SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #31
I won'tbe there unionworks Mar 2012 #34
uh.. SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #35
how biting... not dionysus Mar 2012 #13
In 2008 unionworks Mar 2012 #27
The thought of risking to manage how to survive a destructive R-money presidency for 4 years... Amonester Mar 2012 #37
your heart unionworks Mar 2012 #39
By orders of magnitude, Obama/Biden are the best candidates we have in that fight. Amonester Mar 2012 #43
you've cut me to the quick. how i shall survive, i do not know... dionysus Mar 2012 #52
Why is congress re-wording this section of the law right now? limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #32
pure coincidence unionworks Mar 2012 #33
You can ProSense Mar 2012 #36
nevermind limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #38
Did ProSense Mar 2012 #40
ProSense that deserves it's own excerpt in the OP IMO SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #42
I don't imagine a more evil version of Cheney or Bush would come after strikers or protesters Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #44
'Evil' will always have a way to parse the language to do what they want. randome Mar 2012 #45
I agree, I also believe that language will be easy to parse. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #46
the point is that this isn't new language onenote Mar 2012 #50
They do this all the time for their ad campaigns. It's basic diddling. joshcryer Mar 2012 #41
You mean, why did they adjust it in January 2011?...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #66
K&R. n/t FSogol Mar 2012 #47
I think you are ... GeorgeGist Mar 2012 #48
Very good response. nt TBF Mar 2012 #49
+1 KoKo Mar 2012 #53
I think ProSense Mar 2012 #54
Perhaps that is because Willful and Intent SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #55
+1 onenote Mar 2012 #68
I think you are ... ieoeja Mar 2012 #67
These are now federal crimes: rug Mar 2012 #56
Please stop trying to promote scare tactics. randome Mar 2012 #57
Facts can be scary rug Mar 2012 #58
And you seem to be ignoring them. randome Mar 2012 #59
What part of "other person protected by the Secret Service" am I ignoring? rug Mar 2012 #60
That part was also included in the 1971 original legislation SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #61
Well, then, there's no need for this legislation, is there? rug Mar 2012 #62
Read the rest of the thread. randome Mar 2012 #63
Maybe you missed post 40.... SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #65
The ProSense Mar 2012 #64
kick SunsetDreams Mar 2012 #69
Petition to uphold our right to petition our grievences shark_attackk Mar 2012 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OMG, they're coming after...»Reply #40