GOODBYE FIRST AMENDMENT? THE TRESPASS BILL HR 347

GOODBYE FIRST AMENDMENT? THE TRESPASS BILL HR 347

THE LATEST VIOLATION to the FIRST AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION

By Hugo Adan, Feb 29, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/

The Trespass Bill HR347 deals with three vital parts of the First Amendment: 1 Freedom of Speech; 2, Freedom of Assembly ; and, 3. Freedom of Petition. Now the question is: which one has been infringed by the current Bill?. Remember that the First Amendment also includes two more parts: Freedom of Religion and Freedom of The Press.

Then the question above should be more precise: Is really the whole First Amendment that is at risk with the bill HR347?. The answer depends on what is the importance you assign to the five freedoms contained in it. To some people the core of the First Amendment is freedom of Speech, Assembly and Petition and the other two fredoms are mere complement or instrumental device to make real the core content.

From a historical perspective we can say that in the past the freedom of religion was the central part and main motivation of the First amendment, but today the most important parts are three freedoms: speech assembly and press, and the instrumental one for the first two is freedom of petition. Then. If the Bill HR 347 only put at risk the freedom of speech and assembly, we can conclude that it is nor the whole First Amendment that is at risk.

Some people can argue that not even the freedom of speech and assembly are at really risk since the instrument to restore them and penalize its potential infringers , that is the right to petition, has not been suppressed. More even, these attempts to infringe freedoms can be contested at State level (just pushing the decentralization suggested by Ron Paul).

If we go further on the rejection of the Federal system, this will help to dissolve the uses and misuses of power by the central Federal Government . It is just the Federal that is providing to States the arguments to consolidate total autonomy from the Federal: their factual abandonment of the US Constitution.

So, their mistake and weakness can be converted into our strength, if and only if we organizer the right people to do so.

The freedom s of Speech and Assembly are now the core and vital parts of the First Amendment , we should defended at whatever cost. The attempt to wipe them out won’t pass.

The freedom of religion and Press are not at risk at all nowadays, they have what they wanted, though there are abuses and misused (islamofobic, for instance) against the freedom of religion and mostly against dominant secularity of this nation. If someone really infringes this freedoms is the advance of capitalism. Take the case of a beautiful temple in the corner of Craft and Forbes in Pittsburgh that has been wiped out by the advance of capitalism and replace by a Tech Center of the Carlow University. Or take the case of another temple in Bates street, also in Pittsburgh where a businessman bought the temple to run a Bar-liquor instead. Who cares about it?. That happens with the consent of the troglodyte Mr Santorum. Only during election time similar troglodytes with middle age mentality makes religion freedom an issue. In the same vein, the freedom of press has been wiped out by advance of monopolies and it is the corporate-press, that has been infringed the First Amendment.

I invite you to open a nice web on the First amendment:

http://www.billofrightsday.com/read-the-bill-of-rights/first-amendment/

and then read with a critical mind the following articles & comments on the Trespass Bill HR 347 and the right to Petition.

===================

GOODBYE, FIRST AMENDMENT: ‘TRESPASS BILL’ WILL MAKE PROTEST ILLEGAL

Published: 29 February, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “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.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

================

DEBATES

In http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1796020/pg1) we found thes comments:

This bill basically, has to do with what the government deems as "restricted building or grounds".

Now, when I look at "Restricted buildings or Grounds" this is super vague. The government could detain me simply because I was outside a courthouse protesting.


In Houston there is people protesting in front of the court house downtown on a daily basis, now they can be removed because they will be so called "interrupting" the flow.


Whoever enters these buildings or grounds without lawful authority, or with the so called "intent" (this is debatable) to disrupt the orderly conduct of government businesses, can be detained and sentenced:


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) any 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.


The second part of the bill: Stay off the White House grounds and fences, or you are screwed.


Stay away from any building or ground protected by the secret service, or you’re screwed. (this includes being away from presidential candidates). Or anywhere that these people MIGHT be visiting.

--------------------------------

THE FREEDOM of PETITION CLAUSE

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO

It seems this trespass bill is a means to impede the Freedom of Petition Clause, that is the part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that reads:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The Freedom of Petition Clause guarantees that Americans can petition the government to redress their grievances without fear of retribution or punishment. This was an important principle valued by the Founding Fathers because of their experience of trying to get King George III and Parliament to redress their grievances. (http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO)

The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to petition the government includes the right to do such things as picket, mail letters, sign petitions, publish materials or use other types of communication to get a message across to the government. It is also generally combined with the right to free speech and the right of assembly to ensure that people can form groups or associations to get their messages across.

The Freedom of Petition Clause applies equally to state and local governments, as well as to the federal government. The Courts have also established that citizens can petition all branches of government, including the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This does not mean however, that citizens have a right to personally meet with the official they wish to petition, but they can submit petitions to their offices or designated person according to established procedures.

The Freedom of Petition Clause played an important role in the Civil Rights fight for African Americans. The Court ruled in many cases that African Americans had the right to do such things as picket, protest and conduct peaceful sitins and boycotts.

The Freedom to Petition may be restricted by the government with reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner. For example, someone does not have the right to expect their petition to be heard at 3:00 in the morning. Someone petitioning the government for redress of grievances must prove that they have legal standing in the matter, meaning that they must show that they are personally affected in the matter addressed.

Why is the Freedom of Petition Clause important?

If you remember reading the Declaration of Independence, Congress included a list of grievances against the British government. The grievances included such things as the king not obeying his own laws, preventing the people from establishing their own elected rulers, keeping standing armies in their land without their consent, imposing taxes without their consent, denying the right to trial by jury in some cases, encouraging the slave population to rebel against them and many others.


The very last grievance mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is this:
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."


The people of the American colonies had sent repeated requests to the King and to Parliament asking for relief from their long list of grievances. Instead of addressing these concerns, King George and Parliament had responded by adding more and more restrictions, regulations, taxes and hardships upon them.

The First Congress of the United States wanted to ensure that if the people had a grievance with the government, they could petition the government without the fear of being punished in return. Consequently, the Freedom of Petition Clause was included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. You can read more about the Purpose of the Bill of Rights here.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/bill-of-rights-purpose.html

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO

==============================

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

What I want to know is what the frak does it say in English?
DasDoomAss. It essentially says, fuck you American citizens, we are your supreme rulers and will fuck you up the ass any way we damn please....

Anonymous 1: When I look at our current governments agenda and see this bill, it really says:

Stay out of our business, and if you get involved we will simply make you disappear. Combine this with the National Defense Authorization Act it means we really have no rights folks.

Anonymous 2: Laws are one thing, if people refuse them it's another. Will you obey a law that says you must only buy and breath gov't approved air through a gov't approved mask? . It doesn't matter what the law is, people obey or not is another.

Anonymous 3: "bend over and take it in the ass slave".


==============