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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
86 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It already applied to all previous G8 summits, because the previous law was in effect
jeff47
Mar 2012
#42
The reason Democrats, including Kucinich, support this is that it doesn't do what you say.
onenote
Mar 2012
#21
So the answer to my question is that you think teabaggers should have unimpeded access to President
onenote
Mar 2012
#34
What do you think an appropriate sentence for crashing a White House event should be?
onenote
Mar 2012
#12
So you'd be fine with a bunch of teabaggers breaking into the residential portion of the WH
onenote
Mar 2012
#22
Read the damn bill. You are wrong. Because the authors of these links are lying.
jeff47
Mar 2012
#37
Well since the law in that regard is the same as it was a week ago, a month ago, and a decade ago
onenote
Mar 2012
#23
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people
libmom74
Mar 2012
#36
An authoritarian government could/would designate a major national strike along the lines
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#66
Yes and money used to mean money and persons used to mean people, but the law
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#67
What is the legal definition of "special event of national significance"? n/t
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#74
Here is some helpful background info on special events of national significance (aka NSSEs)
onenote
Mar 2012
#81
From what I can tell there are only two people that determine what that definition means.
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#82
What the hell is wrong with the senate? I understand how it got through the house but the senate?
jwirr
Mar 2012
#77
Probably because the Senate thinks that protecting the WH and VP residence from unauthorized entry
onenote
Mar 2012
#79
That does make a difference. I would not want protesters doing either of those things.
jwirr
Mar 2012
#85