Woman gets arrested for reading The Constitution

[Raineyrocks]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/october2007/021007_reading_constitution.htm

[lildog]

There has to be more too it then just their reading the Constitution.  I have a hard time believing that was the only justification for their arrest.  I should say actually that I don't want to believe that that was the only reason for their arrest.

[Ogre]

You say that like police are supposed to have a reason to arrest people.

[mvpel]

They ARE supposed to.  Whether they do or not every single time is another question.

[Raineyrocks]

There has to be more too it then just their reading the Constitution.  I have a hard time believing that was the only justification for their arrest.  I should say actually that I don't want to believe that that was the only reason for their arrest.

That was my first thought too lildog because who wants to believe it's gotten to this point, but it has.  Look at how Lauren got arrested for not having a driver's license, it's insane!

[mvpel]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.  There is no law against reading the Constitution, and cannot be.

[Raineyrocks]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.  There is no law against reading the Constitution, and cannot be.

Well I guess they are making the laws up as they go along.

[mvpel]

Assuming she was "arrested for reading the Constitution" rather than for one of the vast assortment of overbearing laws available to police in many states.

I haven't watched the video, Code Pink makes me sick to my stomach.

[Jim Johnson]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.  There is no law against reading the Constitution, and cannot be.

If there where a duly-enacted law against reading the Constitution, would you be all cool with that?
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a law that said it is illegal to read the constitution.

Lauren opposes drivers licenses on moral grounds.  People who are going to obey laws just because they are written down have no moral foundation because they accept the morals of the state.

[Raineyrocks]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.  There is no law against reading the Constitution, and cannot be.

If there where a duly-enacted law against reading the Constitution, would you be all cool with that?
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a law that said it is illegal to read the constitution.

Lauren opposes drivers licenses on moral grounds.  People who are going to obey laws just because they are written down have no moral foundation because they accept the morals of the state.

[Raineyrocks]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.  There is no law against reading the Constitution, and cannot be.

If there where a duly-enacted law against reading the Constitution, would you be all cool with that?
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a law that said it is illegal to read the constitution.

Lauren opposes drivers licenses on moral grounds.  People who are going to obey laws just because they are written down have no moral foundation because they accept the morals of the state.

Oh yeah well, 

[srqrebel]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.

Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.

Morality is the inviolate personal domain of each individual, up to the point where it violates the equal rights of others.  My rights end where yours begin (and vice versa), and that morally trumps any written law. 

Any law that creates a victim where none exists, is a clear violation of individual rights.  Enforcing such a law is morally wrong, regardless of the personal opinions and/or job requirements of law enforcement officers.

Other than that... well, um, what Jim said.  Kinda hard to top that one! 

[mvpel]

If there where a duly-enacted law against reading the Constitution, would you be all cool with that?

Dial it back.

Of course I wouldn't be okay with it.  I just wouldn't be surprised if police tried to enforce it by arresting people in accordance with it.  Police violate their oaths of office in favor of the letter of the law rather frequently, in case you haven't heard, and as I found from personal experience.

But that has no bearing on the title of this thread.  My skepticism goes to the assertion she was "arrested for reading the Constitution."

[kola]

mvpel, it looks as thought they have you in a headlock.

anyway..I would assume they arrested these "pinkys" for disrupting the political piggies speeches. Whta ticks me off if the goons never told the videocam guy what the charges were. All of those treasonic bastards ignored him. We have the right to know.

What the gooncops do not realize is that the more they anger the free people the more hatred they invoke. The repercussions will be ugly.

I, too once looked up to policemen but now my stomach turns when just thinking about them. And it was their actions that made me change my mind.

They are the last people I would call in any situation with exclusion to a pig roast.

Kola

[mvpel]

mvpel, it looks as thought they have you in a headlock.

It's easy to make it look that way when you put words in someone's mouth.

anyway..I would assume they arrested these "pinkys" for disrupting the political piggies speeches. Whta ticks me off if the goons never told the videocam guy what the charges were. All of those treasonic bastards ignored him. We have the right to know.

Yes, we have the right to know, but the police are not obliged to discuss and debate the reason for an arrest to any random stranger hovering around them with a video camera.  If the videocam guy wants to know what the charges are, he can go to or phone the appropriate government office and inquire, and attend the arraignment hearing and any trial that might be held, perhaps even as a witness for the defense.

Oh, I guess not.

I had some Pepto-Bismol and watched the video, and the only support for the notion that she was "arrested for reading the Constitution" is her own assertion as she's being led away in handcuffs.  We have no context, no independent factual information with which to assess that claim.

What I suspect really happened was that the pro-Iraqi-liberation folks had applied for and received a public gathering permit for that location for their demonstration, and this individual was probably removed by the police after being asked to leave by the holders of the permit.

Yes, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right, but the US Supreme Court has recognized that time, place, and manner restrictions are allowable.

The leftist union goons certainly have no problem enforcing time, place, and manner restrictions, even against little girls who want to see the president's airplane:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat378.html

...
But within seconds, a Kerry campaign staff member approached Porter and grabbed her sign.

"You can't have that sign here," the Kerry staffer said.

The sign tore and Porter let go. After he had possession of it, the Kerry staffer "tore it to pieces" and walked away. "He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said.

While the left is willing to use force directly, instead of delegating the use of force to the police, at least the arrested Constitution-reader didn't have her property stolen and destroyed.