Police attacking the left across Midwest

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by oedo
Slowwhand; you really need a permit for an assembly in America? even for assemblies in closed rooms?

Sometimes, yes. It depends on city ordinances, fire safety codes, etc.

Ten people hanging out at the outdoor tables at a Starbucks doesn't need a permit, but 1000 people at a public park does. Assemblies in closed rooms don't require permits per se, since they're on private property rented for the purpose (unless somebody is trespassing ), but the property owner is responsible for such things as meeting occupancy limits and other fire, safety and similar issues.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Well the crucial question is: What happens when I file for a permit, and the authorities do nothing? Are we allowed to assemble, or not?

When you file for a permit, the authorities have to act on it then and there - it's not a delayed process, unless you have something huge (a la million man march or woodstock as the upper sort of extremes) which might require approval of multiple agencies or jurisdictions.

In a typical scenario, you file for a parade permit (if you're going somewhere on a street or public walkways) which is a little more complex, or a use permit, that lets you assemble in one public place. You get a list of standard permit conditions, etc. - how many portacans you need for the crowd, parking and basic traffic, safety, and similar issues.

To be legal, these types of permits have to apply objective criteria such as X number of bodies = y number of portacans, etc. Any criteria related to expressive content of the assembly, or of the group requesting the permit, are extremely limited, as in almost nothing of that type is allowed as a permit condition.

[Chris 62]

Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Che, it's strangely ironic that someone who's an ardent communist calls for Democracy now!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

When you file for a permit, the authorities have to act on it then and there - it's not a delayed process, unless you have something huge

I assume that the authority has an obligation to act, but that doesn't really answer the question: What happens if it doesn't? Does its silence allow me to assemble, or not?

[uh Clem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does questioning the veracity of any site under the indymedia banner somehow equate with supporting the violation of others' civil rights?

I assumed you were the ringleader.

No? That doesn't wash? Okay, sorry, I'll include you out.

[SlowwHand]

What's funny as **** is that so many people, Americans included, think "Freedom" and "Liberty" means they can do whatever they want.

That's a sure sign of moron genes at work.

[Ned]

Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by Chris 62
Che, it's strangely ironic that someone who's an ardent communist calls for Democracy now!

Chris, it is more interesting because one of the first things the communists would do upon taking power would be to repeal the Bill of Rights.

While the commies were having a discussion awhile back about the fine points of their dogma, I asked simply whether they would support the Bill of Rights in any new communist government. I got no replies. Perhaps they thought the question was so off the wall as to be not worthy of a reply.

But what makes America the nation we are is that we are willing to respect the constitutional rights of those who, if in power, would destroy the constitution. By respecting their rights, we demonstrate how ludicrous communism really is.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by Ned
While the commies were having a discussion awhile back about the fine points of their dogma, I asked simply whether they would support the Bill of Rights in any new communist government. I got no replies. Perhaps they thought the question was so off the wall as to be not worthy of a reply.

I remember the question, but I don't remember why I didn't reply. IIRC, it was cuz there was a klot of intense discussion, and it simply go by passed. By and large, I support the Bill of Rights. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one that I think we should do without. Maybe Ten, if that's the one that gives all power to the States that isn't delimited in the Constitution (don't have it memorized anymore).

As to why I'm sticking up for a bunch of anarchists, I'd stick up for you or Chris or just about anyone else I thought the state was unfairly targetting and supressing their Constitutional rights. Remember the labor rallying cry, "An Injury to One is an Injury to All!" Also, if I don't defend you when the state attacks you, who will be left to defend me when they come for me?

Chris62, I am a radical democrat first and more most. A beliver in communal property second. Of course, I believe that a truely democratic system would lead to the latter eventually. It's also what the framers thought, which is why they designed our system to be rather undemocratic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe Ten, if that's the one that gives all power to the States that isn't delimited in the Constitution (don't have it memorized anymore).

That's basically it. All powers not given to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or the people. It's basically been interpreted as meaning the states have powers too (in fact they have greater powers that the federal government, but that's for another thread).

[The Templar]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What's funny as **** is that so many people, Americans included, think "Freedom" and "Liberty" means they can do whatever they want.

That's a sure sign of moron genes at work.

A Dallasite calling other people morons? That takes the cake!

[SlowwHand]

At least I recognize limitations.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Maybe Ten, if that's the one that gives all power to the States that isn't delimited in the Constitution (don't have it memorized anymore).

That's basically it.

Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

The 10th Amendment on its face isn't that bad.

The real bugaboo is the 11th. Apparently someone got the bright idea that people shouldn't be able to sue states in which they don't reside. This may in part be a good idea - you don't want people with no stake in a state's welfare tying it up in litigation. On the thoer hand, why shouldn't government be accountable for its actions.

Then Rehnquist's Gang of Five decided that the 11th Amendment applied to any person suing any state! Incredible! So-called "textualists" actually contradicting the text. This is the real evil amendment, especially when combined with Rehnquist and Co.'s anti-textualist reading. Conservatives are such liars! Interpret the text indeed.

[Berzerker]

Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

The Framers were equating the states with the people so there's no need to remove one and keep the other. The state is merely the vehicle of the people.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Framers were equating the states with the people so there's no need to remove one and keep the other. The state is merely the vehicle of the people.

That's a nice theory, but the States are sovreign, not the people. The States weren't even forced to accept that they had to abide by the Bill of Rights until the last century. Even now, as The Templar mentions, the people have very litte redress against the actions of their states.

Sure, we can vote them out of office, providing they don't blatently violate the law, as they did in Florida. All the Constitution guarantees us against our own states is that the governments must be republican. Well, Venice was a republic, but I doubt any of us would trade their government for ours.

The Constitution has never even been ratified by the people of the US. IIRC, we're the only Constitutional government in the developed world to have that honor.

The States created the Constitution, the States ratified it, and only they can change it. We are their subjects, not their masters.

edit: Had States and the people reversed in first sentence. Fixed now.