Religions > Atheism > First Amendment Does Not Apply When Bush is Speaking (GOP, The Party of Treason)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
01 Feb 2006 10:40:34 PM |
| Object: |
First Amendment Does Not Apply When Bush is Speaking (GOP, The Party of Treason) |
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-leader.html#links
In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the
District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the
section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol --
to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a
Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while
leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police
issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a
"demonstration."
That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress
decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of
persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket
within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).
As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police
needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a
'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a
regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that
regulation specifically provides that it "does NOT include merely
wearing TEE SHIRTS, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that
convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158"
(emphasis added).
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2242 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: First Amendment Does Not Apply When Bush is Speaking (GOP, The Party of Treason) |
02 Feb 2006 10:23:56 AM |
|
|
In article <5233u1t6qd3ctajb1fbcfr2htkri3cmg8a@4ax.com> "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> writes:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-leader.html#links
In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the
District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the
section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol --
to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a
Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while
leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police
issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a
"demonstration."
That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress
decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of
persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket
within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).
As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police
needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a
'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a
regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that
regulation specifically provides that it "does NOT include merely
wearing TEE SHIRTS, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that
convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158"
(emphasis added).
We're really slicing it fine here, but then that's what we pay
judges to do. For example, does rolling your eyes every
time the tour guide makes her regular little joke --
"President Bush" -- does that constitute a "demonstration"?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: First Amendment Does Not Apply When Bush is Speaking (GOP, The Party of Treason) |
03 Feb 2006 11:20:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:23:56 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <drtbms$dn1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <5233u1t6qd3ctajb1fbcfr2htkri3cmg8a@4ax.com> "Yang, AthD (h.c),
Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> writes:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-leader.html#li
nks
In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the
District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the
section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol --
to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a
Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while
leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police
issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a
"demonstration."
That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress
decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of
persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket
within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).
As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police
needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a
'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a
regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that
regulation specifically provides that it "does NOT include merely
wearing TEE SHIRTS, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that
convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158"
(emphasis added).
We're really slicing it fine here, but then that's what we pay
judges to do. For example, does rolling your eyes every
time the tour guide makes her regular little joke --
"President Bush" -- does that constitute a "demonstration"?
-- cary
There is no "Demonstration" without a "Demon".
++ gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: First Amendment Does Not Apply When Bush is Speaking (GOP, The Party of Treason) |
04 Feb 2006 12:35:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:20:53 -0600, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:23:56 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <drtbms$dn1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <5233u1t6qd3ctajb1fbcfr2htkri3cmg8a@4ax.com> "Yang, AthD (h.c),
Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> writes:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-leader.html#li
nks
In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the
District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the
section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol --
to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a
Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while
leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police
issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a
"demonstration."
That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress
decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of
persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket
within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).
As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police
needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a
'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a
regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that
regulation specifically provides that it "does NOT include merely
wearing TEE SHIRTS, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that
convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158"
(emphasis added).
We're really slicing it fine here, but then that's what we pay
judges to do. For example, does rolling your eyes every
time the tour guide makes her regular little joke --
"President Bush" -- does that constitute a "demonstration"?
-- cary
There is no "Demonstration" without a "Demon".
The former White House and Congress is certainly full of Demons.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Not Boring When i Lost All My Money and Can Just Talk About Party Party in ... alt.alien.research
God will not speak to Bush when he is drunk!
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the biblehe was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not like, he wasupset. How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yetonly build a hovel for another?
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: "It can really blow your mind when you find out that intelligent design is not the way our critics have said it is." --Casey Luskin, founder, IDEA Club
What is logical is not always practical when it comes to humans Marcos. I'd much rather have people concentrating on trying to be spiritual and failing than not trying at all
Re: Why was the trinity introduced, not when
| YOUNGOPONI;I mean she's just a b*tch. She came and spoke at my university and I am very open to other people's viewpoints but not when they're just there in order to put down people who disagree with her and try to make them look like clowns because
When you're not an Ivy League, Rich Elitist
Re: Why was the trinity introduced, not when
When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything!"
OT: When food is not enough
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
|
|
|
