The crux of the teabagger (that would be Rep. Amash) argument is as follows:
"Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)"
Only one problem. The revised law didn't just drop "willfully". It added "without lawful authority." The combination of "knowingly" and "without lawful authority" means that if you go into an restricted area you can be convicted if you have knowledge that you've entered the area AND knowledge that you don't have the lawful authority to be there.
Indeed, the legislative history underlying the legislation points to the addition of "without lawful authority" language as the addition of an important element to the offense defined in this section of the bill.
I can't say I'm surprised by Amash's misguided legal analysis. Its pretty typical of the teabagger crowd to come to a conclusion and then stretch and misstate the law to support that conclusion. (See, for example, the teabagger crowd's legal gymnastics on the birther issue).
I am surprised, and a bit sad, to see teabagger legal analysis cited here on DU, however.
= new reply since forum marked as read
