To state otherwise, in a land where the Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, is absurd. Defend the actions of the Governments of this nation in these past weeks in the name of the Supreme Court? One might as well wield the pepper spray and batons themselves.

I know this is an unsettling notion to a culture so used to being ruled by edicts issued by distant Governments, but the Founders affixed the First Amendment to the Constitution in order to  place absolute discretion in the hands of the people, along with the responsibility to do whatever is necessary to establish justice without the interference of a Government which, like all other Governments, has as its sole purpose centralized power in opposition to its citizens.

Like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the words of the First Amendment are clear and exact:  No law.  Period.

As we have seen repeatedly for the past weeks, when the Government does get a vote, protests are violently and illegally opposed by millions of dollars worth of heavily armed police even in America, the nominal “land of the free.”    Anyone who has experienced a routine traffic stop recently is well aware of the belligerent tone that has crept into the discourse between public servants and the citizenry.

We have seen continuing violations of American’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights on live television.  Is it really that much of a stretch to believe the same Governments that order armies of police into violent conflict with thousands of their own neighbors have little or no respect for the First Amendment either?

One of the key obstacles to restoring opportunity for the people of the United States is the “litigation reflex” that follows every person who rises to speak.   The Constitution does not need to be ratified by any court, nor do the people of this nation require leave, orders or authorization by any agency to exercise their right to publically stand, sleep, recline, dance or sing under an American Flag.

They just can’t set up tents on the steps or camp out in a city park.

I seriously doubt that any court, no matter who’s doing the appointing, will decide that camping in city parks – or setting up tents on the stairs in front of City Hall – is a necessary element of constitutionally-protected speech.

It might be time to place some Constitutional limits on the Supreme Court’s self-awarded authority.

The problem isn’t the Supreme Court; it’s Congress’s unwillingness to confirm any sane nominee for the Supreme Court. It’s yet one more tool of government-by-hissy-fit.

Perhaps Congress needs to step in and limit the Court’s jurisdiction in the matter and restore the true meaning of the First Amendment. If not Congress then the states need to take the lead in curtailing the latitude the Supreme Court seems to have discovered it can aggrandize when the other branches of government aren’t looking.

There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on an American citizen’s personal liberties.  The very words themselves are absurd.  The Constitution recognizes the people’s absolute right to assemble peaceably.   The language is not equivocal, nor is it unclear, and if Congress may make no law, the Supreme Court most certainly cannot rule in contravention of the First Amendment.

At 6:30am this morning (Monday, 11/28), they reopened the streets around the park to traffic.  Everyone who stayed is still there.  Aside from a couple of arrests of the Usual Idiots, no conflict or violence has arisen.

I’m told that LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a  former labor organizer, studied aikido back in the day, back when he was a leather-jacketed MECHAista called Tony Villar.  Don’t know if it’s true, but it might explain a few things. :-)

A copy of the letter to OccupyLA that Villaraigosa posted to Twitter can be found here [PDF].

I have to confess that, so far at least, I’m very impressed with how the city and the LAPD have been handling this.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

“Evicting” protestors or whatever current legal theory is a violation of the Constitutionally protected rights of a free people.

If the government wants to keep protesters from blocking traffic they can start by taking them seriously.

 ”Agents Provocateurs” are people from one side infiltrating the other side to rile people up and cause havoc to either discredit them or justify an action by their side.

Yes there are provocateurs.

It’s disturbing that the people protesting are acting like a bunch of hooligans. It’s less disturbing that cities don’t want their businesses disrupted by the same children,

Yes, those horrible, hooligan children.  Just look at this one clinging to this poor woman!

http://thumpandwhip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OWS-mom-daughter.jpg

Ironically, it’s you who is acting like the infant throwing a tantrum, wes.  Get ahold of yourself.  Step away from the rightwing radio and Fox “News” for a spell.  Educate yourself on your real enemy.

What you meant to say was “the agent provocateurs are acting like a bunch of hooligans.”

Know the difference.

It’s less disturbing that cities don’t want their businesses disrupted by the same children, indicated as protesters throwing tantrums because they didn’t
get the new toy that they wanted.