Redstate

Why was she removed at all?  Because her shirt would be on t.v.?  

I'm with all of you... she was inappropriate in this case.  If you're a guest at the state of the union address, you act the part regardless of any personal feelings or agendas against the adminstration.  Wearing a shirt with the number of dead emblazened on the chest is not appropriate for a big official state function.

However, I think it's grounds for people criticizing her choice of attire.  NOT grounds for removal.

If that doesn't scare you in terms of free speech, I guess nothing will.

Cindy said in a speech once, at San Francisco State I believe, that she'd actually offered to run over her son's legs with her car, so that he wouldn't have to fight in the war. Her son declined the "kind" offer, and did his duty instead.

So, Cindy is not always opposed to bruising--even to REAL bruising.

...that Cindy would be yelling "YOU KILLED MY SON MR. BUSH!!!" about halfway through the speech? What do you think she was there for, if not that?

I do, however, have doubts.  I think silently sitting with the shirt on would get her point across without being vocally disruptive.  

As I said, I think it was an inappropriate stunt.  But no, I'm not certain that she would have escalated her inappropriateness to the level of actually disrupting the proceedings.

I guess that will be the rub in this discussion... you'll say it was necessary to prevent some sort of SOTU anarchy.  I'm saying it was an unnecessary infringement on the woman's right to be as inappropriate as she pleased within limits.

There's a part of me that takes an odd kind of pity on Ms. Sheehan.  Ever since Joe Trippi, Joseph Wilson III, Parker Blackstone, Jan Schakowsky and Medea Benjamin got their mitts on her they've been pushing her around the country and exploiting the living daylights out of her.

So why don't you leave profanity laden posts in these comment sections? You know you'll be banned right? She broke the law knowingly and willingly and was arrested and charged. She spit in the face of a law and tradition that has been held for over two hundred years. That behavior is undemocratic mob rule but I'll bet you believe in shouting down peoples speech if you don't like what they're saying.

Do you get to decide what is within limits or not?

Let me put it this way, if you tried to grab a steak at Morton's in DC at night with a T-Shirt - any T-shirt - on, do you think you'd get in? (I'm not 100 per cent sure about Morton's policy there, but I'm sure one of our DC guys could think of a steakhouse with a similar policy).

Now, most people would think the SOTU requires more basic decorum than your average fancy-steakhouse dinner.

Others, like you, see this as the long night of fascism descending.

I'm sure your politics has nothing to do with it.

wear t-shirts with slogans on them to the SOTU. In fact, lets get advertisers pay to have someone wear their shirt on tv. Then, when the President is talking about health care or social security, the camera can pan to someone in the gallery in an "Eat at Blimpies!" t shirt.

I am getting goosebumps right now.

In 1999, a man was pulled out and arrested at a Clinton SOTU for wearing a T-Shirt that said "Clinton doesn't inhale, he just S____s!"  

I thought at the time, that although no fan of Clinton, that it was outrageous that someone could be arrested for wearing a shirt - anywhere.

I'm surprised so many conservatives are fine with some being arrested for wearing a T-Shirt.  

miscalculation by hitching their wagon to this unbalanced wacko.  They also are out of touch when only a smattering of them applaud the measures that have kept our enemies at bay these long years.  Truly, it is still not physically safe at all to vote for any of them when their national party remains in denial.    

...if there is a declared dress code for the event? If so, then I could easily see that being enough for removal.

After all I don't believe they will permit you to sit in there with any writing you want at all on your shirt. Cursing, pornography, etc would obviously have you removed. So I can't imagine there isn't already something in place stating it is the sole decision of the security whether your clothing is deemed appropriate or not, with general language about good taste, polite, OK for prime time TV, whatever.

I personally would rather us go back to good old fashioned written letters. :)

I can agree with a person being removed.

Arrested is an entirely different matter.

That freedom of speech is not completely unlimited?  Could it be that with rights come responsibilities that require judgment?  You are free to speak you mind, but not free to do it so that it infringes on other people's rights.  The STOUS is not for a tiny minority of radical leftists, or a tiny minority of radical conservatives.  It is for all of us.  They have every right to enact rules to ensure that this important speech gets delivered to the American people, and does not turn into the same freak show we were subjected to in Crawford Texas.  That sword obviously cuts both ways; as it should be.  

A representative's wife was also asked to leave, for wearing a t-shirt reading "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

... arrested though?

Presumably being a Rep's wife, she had the good sense to go quietly and thus not get arrested.  Dollars to donuts Cindy didn't.

to the House of Representatives --- they and they alone make the rules for behavior in the gallery and the chamber. The President has, read-my-lips-here, ZERO control over the conduct of the Capitol Police in enforcing the rules of the House or the Senate. It will probably come as a surprise to you but before the President may enter the House or Senate Chamber he must get permission from the respective body. The only people who are allowed in the chamber are current and former members of each house.

The rules of the House prohibit improper attire, protests, political statements or even speaking, by visitors in the gallery. It has nothing to do with whether its the SOTU or even the day to day 'business' of the House.

Sometimes it amazes me how little people know about the operation of their own government.

... and I think you're probably right.

Considering the field day the libs had distorting Doe v Groody, this one could be interesting to follow.

Its their rules folks. Your complaint is with the House and the Senate, not the President.

The two houses would have a hissy-fit if the administration tried to set the rules for visitors in the galleries.

... the rules of attire in the House don't really come up very often. :) For me personally it had never even occured to me to wear something of protest in there so it had never occured to me whether there were rules against it or not.

is up . . . a long time ago.

not a right.

Cindy wasn't arrested for wearing the shirt, she was arrested for refusing to be quiet and cover it up.  If she had complied with the legitimate instructions of the Capitol police she would have been allowed to remain.  If she had left when instructed to she wouldn't have been arrested.

Imagine you invite a guest into your home to attend your childs birthday party.  While there the guest becomes belligerent and begins to use profanity in front of your children.  You ask this person to either be quiet, or leave.  They refuse to do either so you call the police and have the person arrested.  Is your action legitimate?  If not, why?

Here are the gallary rules listed for the press which I'm suer they were applying to her as well:

they shall declare that, while a member of the Galleries, they will not act as an agent in the prosecution of claims, and will not become engaged or assist, directly or indirectly, in any lobbying, promotion, advertising, or publicity activity intended to influence legislation or any other action of the Congress, nor any matter before any independent agency, or any department or other instrumentality of the Executive branch;

Her shirt was a publicity activity intended to influence people.

http://periodical.house.gov/rules.shtml

the right to do or wear or act or say whatever you please in whatever setting you find yourself in?

Maybe this isn't about free speech at all, but about words so old fashioned that they are almost quaint. Manners. Etiquette. Conducting oneself with dignity. I was raised by a very liberal mother, but she would have a fit if I had shown up for an even like the SOTU in a t shirt, and a total aneurysm had it had a slogan on it.

I'm sick of her, but also think pity may be justified. She's a woman apparently incapable of introspection who, in a time of grieving, was seized upon by cynical manipulators for purposes of exploitation.

I hope her friends or family members tried to sit her down and explain her terrible, terrible mistakes to her, the fact she's a dupe of those who hate America. If not, they failed her.

And now she's just nuts. Some people return to their senses after such periods of delusion. Others do not (see Clark, Ramsey).

That simply has to be the worst analogy I've read in a long time.  Do you think the t-shirt was the issue (Capital Hill fashion police?) or was it the factual but provocative message.  If the latter, then it does sorely point to how quickly we've come to view "freedom from speech that we don't like" a new American value.

Well this proves that America has gone by the wayside.  When a person is arrested for wearing a t-shirt that is not profane, this country has become a police state.

It's a sad day when our Civil Liberties are taken away.  If you think that this is bad, just wait until the Renewal of the Patriot Act takes place.  Then everyone can say goodbye to what ever rights exist.

For those who have no issue with Bush spying on American citizens, then they don't deserve any rights.  Because the issue is not whether he can or cannot listen to phone calls or read emails.  The issue is getting a warrant and following the law.  No one is above the law, not even the president.  There is 3 days, and under wartime its 15 days, so there is no reason not to follow the law.  Also the fact that Gonzals lied, as well as Bush/Cheney to congress only shows that this country is heading in the wrong direction.

I am not a Republican or an Democrat.  I associate with neither party.  I believe that EVERYONE should have the right to be free and live as they want, as long as it does not infringe on anyone else or dictate to anyone else how they should live.

Just because a person wears a t-shirt that has some numbers on it and asks a question, does not warrant being jailed.  If there was a dress code, then don't you think that she should have been stopped at the door?  Obviously, there was no dress code, or the security is not doing their job (and that would not supprise me when it comes to security).

I realize this is a Republican based site, and as I have stated "I don't affiliate with a party" so I am not biased either way.  However, I strongly belive that this president has failed in every way possible.  If you believe that Cindy should have been arrested for wearing a t-shirt, can you please help me understand your logic behind this?  Don't try to say that "her intentions were to disrupt the speach", because no one knows here intentions.  If she would have, then perhaps that may have warranted an arrest.  Please explain why she does not have a right to wear this shirt?  She was let in, she was not stopped before entry.  She did not hide it on entry.  She was peaceful throughout the process.

Can someone help me understand the thought process for this kind of action?  What in the laws or the Constitution prevents a person from wearing a t-shirt?

Many thanks

You could have at least tried to read the other comments in the thread.

You give opposition a horrible name.

and farewell.

have been greatly exaggerated.

Where in the laws or the Constitution...

http://periodical.house.gov/rules.shtml

P.S. Independent moonbats are no better than Democrat moonbats.

My understanding is that she was not causing any commotion.  She was just sitting there.  Also, if the shirt was not allowed, then they should have said something before she was let in, don't you think?  She was invited and was just sitting there.  Just because she does not agree to cover it up, does not warrant being arrested.  Even if she was to get into an arguement, this does not warrant being arrested.  As long as she did not become violant or make statements that are threatning.

So what warrants her being arrested?  Please help me understand.

according to the Capitol police:

"Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited"

Do you enablers also condone that?   If you do, how about if she is cursing?  Now what if she climbs on her seat and starts spitting, but not hitting anyone?  Their line is at yelling and wearing partisan shirts.  Sorry if your line is somewnere else (I'm not really sorry, just being polite).

Thanks for the reply, but the information provided does not show how wearing a t-shirt means that you get arrested.

Also, if there is a dress code don't you think that they should not be let in to begin with????

So if she is just sitting there, and not being disruptive how does that warrant being arrested.  Just because someone does not want to be touched when being taken out of a building does not mean that they are fighting.  She really looks like she is much bigger than the person taking her out.  So how does this warrant being arrested.

Please note that I do not support her or agree with her, but she is an American and deserves the rights that I went into the military to defend.

Well this proves that America has gone by the wayside.  When a person is arrested for wearing a t-shirt that is not profane, this country has become a police state.

... what this "proves" is that people make it a point to deliberately conduct illegal demonstrations, knowning and expecting to be arrested, in order to provoke comments precisely like the ones that were engendered in you.  And it worked (in your case).  If you're half the intellectual you claim to be, please stop getting sucked in by publicity stunts like this.  Use your head.

And also, research Supreme Court rulings on foreign intelligence a little better.

and being disruptive:

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited

stop being an eneabler!

Cindy Sheehan was removed from the gallery for her own protection.  Look at the picture.  Judging by the curvature of the benches in the lower right corner of the photo, she appears to have been seated in the gallery to the rostrum's left.  She was seated on the same side as the First Lady!  The Capitol Police protected Cindy by removing her before Laura and Mrs. Clay (the wife of the fallen Marine that the President honored) could get over there and go up one side of her and down the other! </attempt at humor&gt

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited

just stop defending her non-rights.  As a guest you behave in the manner you are expected to or you are asked to leave.  I am sure you have those rules in your house also, not that 99.999999999% of the world would need to be told how to be a good guest.  

Turns out that a FL congressmans wife we asked to leave also for wearing a shirt supporting our troops.

Funny, I'm missing that outrage anywhere.

I have done EXTENSIVE research in this matter.  Out of over 18,000 requests for a FISA warrant, only 5 have been turned down.

FISA is for spying on conversations leaving this coutry or entering this country from a foreign representative.  IT DOES NOT ALLOW SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS.  Perhaps you should read up on it.  If a person in the US is going to be listened to, then a warrant IS REQUIRED.  FISA is quite clear in this.

If you think that this program is only on these types of calls, the you should do more research.  ALL calls are being listened to and saved.  THIS IS ILLEGAL without a warrant.  Also, if it was such a successful program why have we not arrested anyone?  Why are there thousands, hundred of thousands, and millions of people being monitored?  Why has the FBI stated that most, if not all, of the leads are a waste of time?

Please do more research and look at the legality of the issue and not the other aspects that you feel are justified.  We are a nation of laws, not men.

you have already made up your mind, but I'll give it a try.

She came in with the shirt covered by a jacket.  You can see the jacket in her hands as she is being escorted out.  It is reasonable to assume given her past activities that her intent was to conceal the shirt, then reveal it for the cameras, despite a house rule prohibiting her doing so.

It is your opinion that refusing to cover it up does not warrant an arrest.  How do you justify that?  Is the house of representatives entitled to make its own rules?  If so, then she was clearly in violation of those legitimate rules.  What should the consequence be?  Being asked to stop the violation seems reasonable to me.

You said

Even if she was to get into an arguement, this does not warrant being arrested

Are you offering this as some type of informed legal opinion?  If so, with all due respect, you are mistaken.  Failure to abide by the rules and creating a disturbance while doing so is certainly grounds for corrective action.

You said

As long as she did not become violant or make statements that are threatning

Let's face it, this is simply your opinion, not a statement of the rules of the house of representatives.

Bottom line, you enter someone's house, you follow their rules.  Failure to do so is justification for asking you to leave.  Failure to leave when asked is justification for an arrest.  This is what happened with Ms. Sheehan.

Understand now?

And I'm certain her t-shirt would break the dress code.  

The point is that rather than asking her to put her coat back on (which assumingly was dress code ok since they let her into the building with it and didn't react until they saw her t-shirt), they said "protestor" (of course, allegedly) and roughly or not-roughly forced her to leave.

In short, if it was a dress code problem - ask her to leave her coat on or else explain that she must leave unless she finds something more appropriate to wear.

If it was a "protestor" problem, I think her freedom of speech was grossly infringed based on the "TASTE" for her speech of those in charge.

Where did my profanity come into play?  And mob rule?   You sound highly paranoid.

I thought we were the paranoid party...

A friend pointed me at the following link:

MEXICO CITY -- Mexico says it's arrested four Iraqis who were trying to sneak into the United States without the proper documents.

The article claims that this has happened before, and that none have been found to have links to terrorism-- but I really wonder that even if they were found to have links, that information may not have been made public.

Insert call for better border control here.

Covered with a coat.  Once inside, she was asked to cover it up, but refused.

You have a very tenuous grasp of the fundamentals of constitutionally protected freedoms.

Work on that.

How am I disobeying any rules?  I am asking a question, quite politely, and pointing out things that are in question.

If this is against the rules of this site to ask questions and present a different point of view for debate, then I guess I have entered a place that is not of Americans.

Unless I have called anyone names, or been disrespectful in any way what is the harm in debate and asking questions?  Why do you need to accuse people of being disruptive and non American because someone asks questions?

If that report is true, that they asked her to close her jacket and she refused, then I fully support removing her from the place.  Arresting her?  I'm not sure, but whatever.

I guess it's a bit of he said she said, and frankly I tend to believe the Capitol Police more than I believe her perception of what happened, so I take back my condemnation of her removal.

However, prior to your post explaining the situation via that article, your cronies maintained that all was fine even if there was no warning or request to close the jacket etc.  

That is frightening, and really displays an utter misconception of what free speech means.

posted above.

She was DEMONSTRATING and TRYING TO INFLUENCE matters BEFORE THE CONGRESS / EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Even if she was quiet, her shirt was a demonstration because it was a message about a political issue.

Based on the link that was provided to you jsut above and the specific quote and links from my comments above, it is clear that you are not allowed to do that in the house gallary.

As for the arrest, the arrest was because she refused to leave the chamber.  You can be arrested for not moving your car if a policeman asks you to.  This is no different.  She refused to move and she refused to cover up her shirt so she was removed.

Keep "etiquette" out of a free speech discussion.  I agree 100% that she was utterly inappropriate.  But that has nothing to do with free speech.  

The point is that there are all sorts of rules of decorum for the galleries, and they are rules established by the two houses, not the President and his "Nazi" Capitol Police.

I heard on the radio this morning that Republican Congressman C.W. Bill Young's wife was removed because she was wearing a T-Shirt that said "Support the Troops - Defending our Freedom."  

Apparently the House has a Dress Code that disallows T-Shirts, or at least T-Shirts with messages emblazoned on them, regardless of whether the message is being worn by a treasonous media-whore.

OK, So she goes into a building with a coat over it.  I understand that!

The point is that it does not warrant an arrest.  If she was as disturbing as you say, dont you think that she would have been walked out by more than one person?  Don't you think that several people would have been walking her out?

The point is that a rule does not warrant being arrested.  My wife has a rule about not letting the dogs in the house, but I don't go to jail if I break this rule.

If we can be arrested by rules now, we are in serious trouble as a nation don't you think?

Rules are not law, or did you miss this in school.  They are important, but they are not law.  Should she have been asked to leave?  SHURE.  Should she have been walked out if she did not cove up the t-shirt, if it was against the RULES? SHURE.

The issue is very fundamental.  A rule is NOT A LAW.  Therefore, does not warrant being arrested.  Removed, yes, arrested, no.

I don't care one way or the other, but this is important for Civil Rights.  If a person can be arrested for this, then what it next?  Why is this so difficult to understand?

Here is the link to the Federal statute governing what Cindy Sheehan did wrong:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode40/usc_sec_40_00005104----000-
.html

I have more at:

http://tarheelcon.blogspot.com

is against their good ol' boy, essentially.

Point taken.  

"... is against their good ol' boy, essentially."

The psychic friends network told me your future holds a banning. Maybe not right now, maybe not for this comment. But, oh, it's coming.

He's just some good old boy and we're all his little lackeys, right? That's what you're saying. Why not come right out and say it?

its a house rules issue.

Why werent you there speaking freely? You werent invited, were you? Neither was I. That is also clearly an infringement of freedom to speak, or even enter, the "people's house".

your post does not reflect it.  There have been numerous court decisions affirming the inherent power of the executive branch to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes.  Check out the following cases:

United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)

United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970)

United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977)

There are many more.

Congress does not have the authority to reduce the executive branchs constitutionally mandated powers.  The very idea runs counter to the concept of a system of checks and balances.  If FISA removed inherent constitutionally mandated powers from the executive branch, then the executive would be essentially powerless as all congress would have to due is pass legislation.  Don't like the presidential veto, pass a law and poof it's gone.  Don't like the president being in charge of the military, pass legislation and poof it's gone.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I suggest more 'extensive' research on your part.

I feel like I've been very reasonable in this discussion.  That last bit, aside, but it was truly a joke.  Sorry if it offended.

No, I don't think you're all his lackeys.  I think there are some very strong reasons for being a Republican in this day and age, and as Republicans I understand why you support Bush.

I just have a problem with blind support, which is oftentimes what comes across (for both sides - blind support or blind disgust) on message boards and such.

Apologies for the joke.  

And my trigger finger is itchy. Cool it now, 'k?

What does it matter if it's inappropriate if your reaction is that she can do it anyway. That's like saying murder is a bad idea, but there is no need to intercede prior to the act because it might not happen.

And so far you've not been.

Reexamine your comments in what you would perceive to be the harshest light.

This is your warning.

about what constitutes a rule and what a law?  Could you provide some citations backing up your OPINION about what types of violations warrant arrest and what types do not?  Thanks.  

While you're at it, could you please pass the Kool-Aid.

However, prior to your post explaining the situation via that article, your cronies maintained that all was fine even if there was no warning or request to close the jacket etc.  

That is frightening, and really displays an utter misconception of what free speech means.

On the otherhand, "his cronies dismissing her removal and arrest" could come from factual knowledge of the House and Senate rules with respect to visitors. If you've' never visited either house in session you would know that they tell you the rules before you go in.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

It's nothing like that.  At all.

more than 10 stories and diaries here you will quickly find that there is no "blind support." Most of the people who participate here regularly are men and women of like mind but not slavish behavior.

The President is entitled to our respect and support not because he is George Bush or a Republican but because he is the President of The United States or America. Because he is the President he is also entitled to our honest, reasonable and rational opinions, a concept which has become an endangered species on the left side of the aisle.

Many people here, myself proudly included, vigorously disagree with the President on a number of issues and have no fear of saying so. Unlike many on the left no regular here sees black helicopters in the night sky or fears being dragged off to a re-education camp for disagreeing with the President.

"Except that, as you can see, the man leading her up the stairs has one hand on her upper arm. If you'll notice closely, his thumb is not even wrapped around the front side of Saint Cindy's arm, which it would have to be if he were applying any grip pressure at all."

The picture also doesn't show anyone standing and applauding the President but I know several people that swear it happened.

A rule is not.

It appears that this was a law.  It was not clear initially.

These cases are long before the FISA court was established.  TRY AGAIN.

Also, the president does not have "inherant power" to do this.  Show me in the CONSTITUTION that gives him this power?  There is no place in the constitution that provides for UNCHECKED power, or for the president to violate the law.  In fact, the law is clear.

Here is the relevant section to the Presidential Powers, please show me where it states he can break the law and that he has inherant powers?

All I can find is that he is Commander in Cheif of the military.  This does not mean that he can break the law as he feels fit to.

Section 2. [1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[2] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[3] The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3.He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4.The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I submit that if you are sitting in the middle of the street and a city cop tells you to get up and move along and you do that's the end of it.

Howver if he/she tells you to move along and you do not get up and move you will probably be arrested for disorderly conduct or some similar charge (depending on the city/state.)

She violated a rule of the House and was asked to stop. She failed to do so and was removed from the Gallery.

Things get very hairy when you try to identify what does and does not qualify as a war power of the president.

"The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers.  In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.  Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress."

In short, neither side is CLEARLY right on this.  It's very sketchy.  It would depend on the Supreme Court's interpretation - they haven't said much on it - which is why Alito on the bench is scary for reasons far more pressing than abortion rights.

ALL calls are being listened to and saved.

If you really believe this a) you have a far greater expectation for the abilities and resources of the NSA than anyone I know; b) you have no concept of the manpower, computer resources and storage requirements to listen to and save every telephone call, fax, email, etc., that occur in this country on a daily basis; c) there is no hope for you.

Is that regulations have the force of law.

Yes, the president does have wartime powers.  Congress cannot tell him how and where to send troops.  However, congress can elect not to fund his venture.  Even then, the president has power over the troops and against foreign agents, not Americans.

There is nothing even in wartime powers that gives the president the right to violate the Constitution during war.

This is not a war agains a country.  It is a war against a ghost.  It's not like we have a direct target to go after, which of course is harder for the president, but he still must follow the laws.  Wartime powers only grants him greater ability with the military and Foreign intelligence.

This issue at hand is not foreign intelligence, it s demestic spying.  I doubt you will find anyone who is against spying on the enemy.  The problem is that just throwing out a net and HOPING is not legal.

Wartime powers, vague as they may be, still does not allow the president to violate the law of the land.  If that was the case, then all of the other presidents could have done this with the "war on drugs", and any other war that we are considered to be in.

Can you elaborate on what the wartime powers says?

Regulations are agency interpretations of STATUTE.  So it has to be passed first, then, the Agency interpretation has the force of law as long as it passes the Chevron test - which is essentially "was the Agency's interpretation among reasonable interpretations?  If so, it governs."

So in essence, IRS regulations have the force of law as long as reasonable interpretations of the statutes passed, i.e. the Internal Revenue Code.

When we were assuming incorrectly that there was no statute governing this, we were correct to say that breaking a "rule" does not warrant arrest.

I followed the link to DailyKos.   In the posting that once contained the picture, all I saw was an image labeled:

    "This image removed due to high-bandwidth usage.  You can restores this image replacing it with a clickable thumbnail, which uses less bandwidth."

What's curious is that the image Leon posted in this thread in just 29kb in size.  Did he reduce it, or is someone at DailyKos making an excuse for removing it?   Does anyone have a copy of the original version of the page to be able to tell?

National Review Online posted this -- might explain some things...

BUSH'S GESTAPO AT WORK, PT. 2 [Byron York]

This morning a poster on the FreeRepublic website remembered an incident from the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial in which a man was removed from the Senate chamber and taken into custody -- for wearing an anti-Clinton T-shirt. The story was reported the next day in the New York Daily News:

WASHINGTON A Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

Dave Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats last Saturday when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said yesterday he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt," which said, "Bill Doesn't Inhale He Just S---s."

Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn't let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. "They were polite and professional," Delp added, "but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up."

Capitol police declined to comment.

--- Me -- so it's not just a Bush thing, apparently it's a House thing.

I'm very liberal.  I'm fine with domestic spying on potential terrorists and terrorist connections as long as there are safeguards in place.

I.e. if some other crime is overheard via tapping that has nothing to do with spying on terrorists, it is off the table in terms of prosecution for the crime.

it's the old "fruit of the poisonous tree" idea in criminal procedure.  

I recognize that we're in a screwed up period where the president may need to take some extra liberties with our historical perception of things... however, he should not do it without going to Congress and ensuring that safeguards like above (and others) are implemented.  

Likely teh user who posted it did so at a free image hosting site. The bandwidth is about the number of downloads, not the size of the file. In all likelihood, so many thousands of people viewed the page (thereby downloading the image to their temporary files) that it exceeded the users alloted amount of free bandwidth.

Unlike Cindy, she probably also didnt look upon getting arrested as a badge of honor or goal for the evening.

in a post, then everyone who loads the page loads the picture. Even if it's a small picture, with the number of people on dKos that's a lot of bandwidth. The free hosting services that people generally use have limits, after which they serve a small image like the one you saw with a request to just link to the picture.

Title 40 of the USC Sec. 5104 "Unlawful Activities" dealing with the Capital grounds:

(f) Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags.-- Except as provided in section 5106 of this title, a person may not--

     (1) parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Grounds; or

     (2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

Seems to me this could cover the wearing of a t-shirt designed to bring into public notice her cause.  

"Maybe this isn't about free speech at all"......

Let's see.....

a) you have a far greater expectation for the abilities and resources of the NSA than anyone I know;

Really, then you must not get out much or read the paper.  This is what is happening, and if you don't think that the government can do this then you are truely blind to the truth.  They are tapped into the TRUNK of the telecommunications system and this is all digital.  Ones and Zeros for you non-technical people.  Once this is captured, there is a technology these days called compression, that can reduce the size of files.

b) you have no concept of the manpower, computer resources and storage requirements to listen to and save every telephone call, fax, email, etc., that occur in this country on a daily basis;

Really?  And you must not have any concept of computer programs?  Do you not realize that computer software can do the work of thousands of people when the data is in it's digital form?  You must not be techically inclined, I understand not a lot of people are.

c) there is no hope for you.

Really, is that why I am a very technical person?  Are you technical in any way?  Do you know how computers really work?

These cases are long before the FISA court was established.  TRY AGAIN.

Heres v. Duggan, 1984, post-FISA:

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

And FISA Sealed Case 02-001:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

This has nothing to do with free speech.

I'll never forget a few years ago, E.L. Doctorow was giving a speech that was protested by Young Republicans on campus, who booed him. His statement was that his free speech was being stifled.

When you boo a liberal, you're limiting his free speech, and must be stopped. When he boos you and must be stopped, you're limiting his free speech.

Seems to me the only kind of "free speech" liberals want to recognize is their own.

It's not a free speech issue. Get over yourself.

There is nothing even in wartime powers that gives the president the right to violate the Constitution during war.

If I had a nickel for every time a wartime president suspended habeus corpus, I could afford my own blogsite.

and get back to me

Take "communication" and get back to me.

We have family abroad, and I have business interests abroad.  Calls to foreign countries go out over our phone lines all the time.  Are my calls being monitored in any way?  Are my calling patterns (countries, times, dates, frequencies, etc.) being filitered through some sort of an algorithm?  Have I been assigned some sort of a number or classification in the eyes of my government based on the results of this tracking?  

Any government action obtaining that kind of info about American citizens may need to be done, but if so there need to be Constitutional safeguards in place.  There is no government I trust that much.

I think you and I are on agreement here.....

The problem I have is that just telling someone what you are doing without telling them how or why you are doing something is NOT OVERSIGHT.  Not allowing people to disagree with you is not oversight.  Then telling the American people that congress knew and approved the program is not oversight.

I think that this is the distinct difference between those who support and those who disagree with the program.  One group does not care about oversight, while the other does.

what would be the point of all that.  As it is, the only real problem here is that the NSA surveillance is placing on the FBI what they feel to be an undue burden of work.  Which seems to be the source of this controversy to begin with, just more infighting between agencies.

they guy you referenced was clearly a moron, but don't project his misunderstanding of things on me.  

when you speak at a young republicans event and the young republicans boo you, it is utterly ridiculous to claim that your free speech is being stifled.  there is no STATE ACTOR.  

when you hold a sign that protests something, and a police officer tells you to put it away, there is a free speech issue because there is a STATE ACTOR.

i can't "infringe on your free speech" when you're visiting my home because it's my home, i'm not a state actor, and you have no free speech rights in my home.

the same cannot be said for the house of Congress, vis a vis a Capitol Police officer.

assumes something that remains in question.

I, incidentally, made the same argument about the state that you did, with regard to Doctorow, those years ago. It didn't get far with your crowd. FYI.

You presume that because the authorities were involved, Sheehan's right to free speech has been violated. The middle of that argument is missing, that being whether or not her speech was limited at all. To make an extreme example, arresting someone for loitering isn't curtailing their freedom of speech merely because the state was involved. How about this. I wear a protest shirt to a Kerry speech, during which I shoot and kill a puppy. The police remove me. Because I was wearing a protest shirt, is it therefore a freedom of speech issue?

I haven't seen any evidence that her speech is being limited. Indeed, she's had ample air time. The only thing that happened to Cindy is that she was removed from a controlled area at the time of a Presidential address, because she was violating the rules. And whether she had the intent of exercising her free speech rights makes no difference to that fact.

It is therefore, very clearly, not a free speech issue.

The documents talk about Foreign surveilance, not demestic spying.  I will say it again; No one has a problem with Bush spying on people overseas, outside of this country.  This is not what is happening, and what about demestic spying do you fail to understand?

Here is the important part of the decission:

"outside the U.S. Thus, on the assumption that the surveillance authorized by Bush is conducted outside the country and is interception of known or suspected terrorists threats, there is no question about the legality of the President's post 9/11 "spying" order."

Notice how it says "outside the country".  Therefore, the wiretapps on American people without a warrant is against the law.

If you can prove that the hundreds of thousands of voice, email, etc. that have been intercepted are all from terrorists, I doubt there will be any issue.  However, Bush and company can't because all of the data is largely American intercepts, which makes it illegal without a warrant.

Please understand the difference between outside of country and inside of country.

So it's the FBI's fault and problem because 99% of the information they are provided with by the NSA is a wild goose chase.  Rather than getting valid information, or reliable information, they are just given anything and everything so it's the FBI's fault.

That makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing that up for me.

flunked your con law class.

Maybe when you get readmitted you'll study harder.

What you've said here is true in only the most superficial way. State actors interfere with speech all the time. McCain-Feingold, FTC/FCC, porn laws, cross burning laws, libel/slander laws, fighting words, sedition, and on and on.

You, my friend, are on a short and steep glidepath out of here. To date you've said nothing that convinces me that you have anything to say and have demeaned a number of posters.

Unless a sea change in behavior happens you can soon analyze the limits on your free speech by a non state actor.

believe you are attempting this stunt. What does FISA have to do with anything?

No answer?

Oh, that's right. You can't.

Obscenity, fighting words, etc.

My point was not that a state actor can never infringe on speech rights - there are standards and they have been heavily adjudicated.

My point was that absent a state actor, that liberal guy he's referencing is an idiot for saying that his freedom of speech was being infringed by boos and hisses.

And I don't really understand the antagonism.  I think I've been fairly accomodating to others' points of views.  Hell, I've even admitted I was wrong on the illegality portion...

However, prior to your post explaining the situation via that article, your cronies maintained that all was fine even if there was no warning or request to close the jacket etc.  

That is frightening, and really displays an utter misconception of what free speech means.

When someone is breaking the law, there is no requirement to provide a warning or request to cease and desist before enforcing the said law.

Try this: Walk into any courtroom in the country that is in session holding a banner calling the judge a Nazi.  See if you get a warning or a request from the bailiff before you're hauled out.  And that's just a random judge sitting in a random case, not the goshdarned State of the Union by the President of the United States before a joint session of Congress with the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff present.

Free speech might mean a lot of things, but it doesn't mean breaking the law entitles you to a warning.

What is truly frightening is how you really display an utter misconception of what free speech means.

-TS

Exactly. Such restrictions are permissable as long as they are content neutral.

It is settled law that speech can be regulated as to time, place and manner. The specifics of each case can cause disagreements, but the legal principle of such restrictions is not in dispute.

is that Mexico arrested anyone trying to enter the US instead of giving them a map to water and sending them on their way.

I encourage you to do the same.

Let's review the bidding

Could it be...  By: liberal execration  

That freedom of speech is not completely unlimited?  Could it be that with rights come responsibilities that require judgment?  You are free to speak you mind, but not free to do it so that it infringes on other people's rights.  

which earned this thought provoking and insightful response:

WOW  By: face  

You have a very tenuous grasp of the fundamentals of constitutionally protected freedoms.

Work on that.

Do we see something very wrong here? Yes we do. A totally assinine comment to a very valid and extremely true point. The courts have time and again gone out of there way to establish that freedom and license are not the same concept.

As to antangonism, I don't know how you got that. You've been registered for going on two weeks. You come into our house, earning no credibility in the meantime, and proceed to crap in our sink and lecture us about your con law class. And we're supposed react to that how?

Take this for what it's worth but I'm not a state actor and I do know the meaning of arbitrary and capricious.

people hyperventilate over the absolutely the most miniscule things.  America is no more?  Civil liberties taken away?  Patriot Act means goodbye to whatever rights exist?

I just want to laugh.

The people who live in actual dictatorships, on the other hand, where civil liberties really don't exist... they just want to beat on whiners like you for not appr