“I think they ought to be removed,” Ramsey said. “I do.
“I’ll bet you that if I took a Boy Scout troop up there and camped out over the weekend, they wouldn’t allow them to do it. That’s just my opinion. I think they’ve gone way too far.”
I agree! If the Boy Scouts or the homeless had started camping out and cooking on the Legislative Plaza and it was not associated with this political protest, would they have been allowed to do so? Of course not. There are even public spaces that have "keep off the grass" signs. The state should push back against the judge who ordered a temporary restraining order; not, throw in the towel. If I was simply an out-of-town tourist and wanted to camp on the capitol grounds to save cost of a hotel room, would that be permitted? I don't think so. This circus of leftist, malcontents, deviants, freaks, homeless, and camaraderie-seeking, spoiled, upper middle class "youth" should be sent home or jailed.
Top Stories
Posts
Sorry we the people didn't elect Ramsey. I have a feeling there would be less spending & more order. In my opinion we have a major RINO Governor. Example: wants to tax Tennesseans that buy on the internet.
ReplyDeleteRamsey wouldn't have done that.Unfortunately we will have Haslem for 6 more years. The Rino's and Democrats will keep him in office.
Sorry we the people didn't elect Ramsey. I have a feeling there would be less spending & more order. In my opinion we have a major RINO Governor. Example: Haslem wants to tax Tennesseans that buy on the internet. Ramsey wouldn't have done that. Unfortunately we have Haslem for 6 more years. The Rino's and Democrats will keep him in office.
ReplyDeleteWho's the arbiter of the protest, deciding if the grievances are legitimate when the protesters are peacefully assembling? Who gets to decide which protest is legitimate and "worthy" of protection under the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteIs it you? Me? A quorum of citizens? An elected judge? An appointed judge? A Supreme Court? A special board of overseers taken from business leaders in the area or the largest donator's to the majority party?
It's surprising that no one on the right (none that I have seen in my political blog reading, caveat) has brought up the infamous slippery slope that exists apparently to deny acknowledging *other* rights granted by the Constitution...this slope is invoked by right wing opponents whenever a group wants to have their rights enforced to somehow justify that acknowledging those rights to one group will somehow allow inanimate objects or pets those right....but the slope doesn't apparently work when groups who are peacefully assembled to protest *certain* issues are denied their rights and there is no "uh oh, what if they start denying Tea Party protests their rights?????"....a real shame and lack of integrity if you ask me.
And no, you shouldn't let anecdotal references set the precedent for the whole group....you and I both know that's not right either.
Robert, Allowing a group to camp-out for months and take over a public space is going beyond exercising free speech. We don't let tourist pitch tents and camp in Centennial Park. Some public spaces have "keep off the grass" signs. Free speech should not extend to taking over a public part and depriving its use to others. No overnight camping is a reasonable restriction.
ReplyDeleteOK, so again, where do you start to stop the camel from poking his nose in the tent, to use that over-used cliche of objection?
ReplyDeleteOvernight protests? Camping protests? Who decides? Each city? County? State? Court district? Or would it have to be Federal, since we are talking about a constitutional right here?
I am saying that once you put limits of this nature on constitutional protests via fiat from the elected legislature, or from the appointed law enforcement, you are continuing to allow the government to limit free speech. Where/how do you stop it? And is it worth it?