Comments on: President signs into law, and tramples on our rights.

By: Amendments 1&2

Amendments 1&2 — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:00:11 +0000

In wake of VT, if they have the freedom of speech to protest at a grieving family’s funeral services for their loved one, then the freedom of anyone wanting to use their right to bare arms and shoot these assholes for protesting should be upheld. Lets stand up for the ENTIRE constitution, not just one line in it. Read the entire First Amendment.

By: Geek

Geek — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 06:33:52 +0000

James,

I tend to agree with mgroves here as well, with a caveat I will get to in a bit.

Time, place and manner restrictions on speech are typically by and large constitutional not because they regulate speech but the manner in which it is to be carried out (so long as those restrictions serve a reasonable purpose and in this case, I think that is most definitely the case). The right to free speech is not the right to be disruptive toward the affairs of others. No person has any right to interfere or cause harm to the rights of others.

Where I get annoyed with this type of legislation is because of the long-lost concept of federalism. The unconstitutionality does not come from a violation of the 1st Amendment, but rather the Necessary and Proper Clause. Unless there’s something I’m missing in the text of Article I, Section 8 or the Tenth Amendment, regulating protestors at funerals falls outside the limited scope of the federal power as outlined by our Constitution. Therefore, the responsibility to deal with this matter should fall to the states or more localized governments.

Of course, constitutional law stopped being about the Constitution during the New Deal. Every solution must be national in nature.

Quite sad really.

By: James

James — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:57:54 +0000

Yes I am aware of his site… and I wish he’d sell me the domain as I wanted the .com when I started this blog a few years back.

By: Charles Chy

Charles Chy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:30:34 +0000

YO JAMES, YOU KNOW THERE IS A BLOG AT http://WWW.RIGHTONBLOG.COM. TALK ABOUT INVASION OF SOME AMERICAN RIGHT. HOLLA SON.

By: James

James — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:58:22 +0000

Freedom of speech INCLUDES being an annoying pompous ass.

Too many people these days think freedom of speech only applies to people on their side.

I agree with you that if I had to pick a side, it would be the grieving families, BUT from a purely legal standpoint, this law is unconstitutional.

By: nick gray

nick gray — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:18:01 +0000

I am with you mgroves, freedom of speech is one thing, but tormenting a grieving family is another. But yes it is a no win situation.

By: mgroves

mgroves — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:29:10 +0000

First, I like the new design.

Second, I completely understand why you are against this law. It makes total sense and I really can’t take issue with what you are saying.

However, I don’t see a slippery slope with this law. If the law is merely in place to stop these insensitive hatemongering douchebags from interfering with a funeral and a grieving family, then I really can’t get upset about it.

I can’t think of any other reason to legitimately protest a funeral that can’t be accomplished without trampling on a grieving family.

It’s a no-win situation I think, but I’d rather side with the families of fallen soldiers than the ghastly Westboro Baptist Church.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:07:32 +0000

Wow, you’re not hypocritical! (NOT)

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:11:45 +0000

While I’d be all for beating the living daylights out of anyone protesting at a funeral (regardless their cause,) I don’t think it should be against the law.