Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
It's pretty clearly an expression of a political opinion, and non-violent in principle. What hoops one has to jump through to get that acknowledged isn't my concern. I submit that these people are saying you're at a crossroads, and your reply is that the city should move in one direction, without dialogue, which is going to result in the situation of armed police in DC pointing guns at a mass of armed civilians, with the civilians intent on self expression and the police bound to start hostilities. Hardly a good resolution.
The City Administration has a duty to protect its citizens from violence. Our SC has ruled famously that free speech is limited when there exists the possibility of imminent violence. Here we have a possibly explosive situation. The dialogue will take place in the court room unless the armed civilians choose to ignore the court injunction. "Non-violent in principle" in this case is on the edge of the slippery slope into violence. I appreciate your libertarian impulse but here we have conflicting rights: free speech vs civil safety. When rights conflict we have hopefully impartial courts to resolve the issue. A similar issue occurred in Indiana years back when the KKK was denied a permit to march in their white robes. The city cited fear that on-lookers would attack them. The SC held against the city and for the Klan. Constitutional principles are judged on situations. It is not like this armed group were intent on marching along a field were there was no danger to innocent bystanders. They want to hold a parade of their loaded guns across a commonly used bridge and down a main city thoroughfare, so yeh, a permit from the city is the usual procedure. By the way, their route of march takes them past the Lincoln Memeorial. I cannot imagine a more inappropriate expression of threatened disunion and armed rebellion.
HUH???
Duty to protect?
Sure, thats the koolaid we drank as children.
quote:
It then proceeds to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." acknowledged as intent in slaughterhouse
Just because we thought (past tense) that was the reason for their creation does not mean that is reality.
They so called STATE HAS NO DUTY TO PROTECT ANYTHING BUT THEMSELVES.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 US 189 - Supreme Court 1989
Petitioners concede that the harms Joshua suffered occurred not while he was in the State's custody, but while he was in the custody of his natural father, who was in no sense a state actor.[9] While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them. That the State once took temporary custody of Joshua does not alter the analysis, for when it returned him to his father's custody, it placed him in no worse position than that in which he would have been had it not acted at all; the State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual's safety by having once offered him shelter. Under these circumstances, the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua.
It may well be that, by voluntarily undertaking to protect Joshua against a danger it concededly played no part in creating, the State acquired a duty under state tort law to provide 202*202 him with adequate protection against that danger. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) (one who undertakes to render services to another may in some circumstances be held liable for doing so in a negligent fashion); see generally W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 56 (5th ed. 1984) (discussing "special relationships" which may give rise to affirmative duties to act under the common law of tort). But the claim here is based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as we have said many times, does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 335-336; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S., at 544; Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 285 (1980); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 146 (1979); Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 701 (1976). A State may, through its courts and legislatures, impose such affirmative duties of care and protection upon its agents as it wishes. But not "all common-law duties owed by government actors were . . . constitutionalized by the Fourteenth Amendment." Daniels v. Williams, supra, at 335. Because, as explained above, the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua against his father's violence, its failure to do so — though calamitous in hindsight — simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.[10]
Hence they voted themselves OUT OF A JOB!
We have no legitimate government in the US
The social contract has been burned at the stake.
Proof? Sure:
State sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.
There is where the governments duty lies! Protecting themselves.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 5/9/2013 2:02:11 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: LocknLoad March on Washington - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread