Poor Cindy Sheehan

[El-Moldo]

There is such a thing as "unlawful assembly". That's why there are times and places where a permit is needed, even in America.

[El-Moldo]

And how come demonstraters have to be "so far" from an abortion clinic? Isn't that against the constitution too. Or was that a special situation?

[Heaven&Hoops]

Can someone back me up on this. I believe I heard on a television program......CNN, MSNBC, or Fox, that Sheehan didn't even raise her son. She left the family. Now all of the sudden she "loves" her son. She should have been there for him when he was growing up, not after he has died.

[TheAnalyst]

Most municipalities in this country have some type of law requiring permits for assembly. It has nothing to do with GW or the current administration. The vast majority of the time the permits are approved with no questions asked. The only time I have ever seen a request challenged is when the KKK was coming to town, but the govt finally relented because of the 1st amendment rights. The reason a permit is needed is so that the govt can be prepared to handle whatever may occur, which may mean traffic control (closing streets) and crowd control, which most likely means extra people on duty. Maybe medical people will need to be on hand if the rally is large enough. There is a lot of logistics involved. That is my take anyway. You can't just ignore the law. Laws are laws whether you agree with them or not. And if you break them you should be punished.

By the way FF, have you ever tried to get a gun in New York City? It is nearly impossible, even though you may be the most law abiding citizen in the world and the Constitution guarantees it. And by the way, to carry a handgun requires a permit approved by the govt. Doens't that seem to go against the Constitution?

[fleaflicker]

Yes, that does go against the Constitution. NYC has attempted to override the Constitution, and most states requiring a permit (other than one's good name, see Vermont) to carry a handgun is also a violation of the Constitution. The founding fathers didn't write in a bunch of exceptions. They figured the few exceptions (such as when dealing with crooks) would be rather obvious, and the rest apparently weren't thought of as exceptions.

The reason a protest has to be a certain distance from an abortion clinic is so that the protest isn't blocking people from getting in. But so long as those assembled aren't forcibly defending their territory (letting passersby alone and not holding up traffic), what is wrong with it?

[TheAnalyst]

Isn't sitting on a sidewalk and not moving when asked to do so by authorities holding up traffic (foot)?

[fleaflicker]

Well, since so many people existing holds up traffic (traffic jams), should we force all of them off of the interestate, or kill them? Since many people in a line at a movie theather hold up foot traffic (if it goes around the sidewalk), then should we get cops to force them to go to the movies elsewhere?

[Pale Rider]

What assinine logic. It boggles one's mind. The really sad thing is, there are others out there like that. And these homo sapiens are allowed to procreate.

[Goodwill]

I am sorry to say that are liberal friends think this way.

[fleaflicker]

So apparently, going to the movies is more important than a person's right to free speech and freedom of assembly?