Congress just passed H.R. 347 which prohibits protests on government or even private property whenever the secret service is involved in security. The article (the link below explains the bill in more detail) explains the apparent motivation of the lawmakers when they passed it.
First, this was in response of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has gripped several major cities across the country of the past several months. Although I disagree with the message of this protest, I do defend their right to peacefully protest. It is the foundation of democracy to allow protests, especially political protests. What is interesting is that it was the Occupy Wall Street movement that lead to this legislation, not the TEA Party movement. The difference in the two movements is like night and day. The TEA Party movement began with the Pledge of Allegiance and remained peaceful, organized, had a specific message, and they left the area clean. The Occupy movement was the exact opposite. Drug use, human defication, and utter disrespect for the people who lived and worked in the area was all too common.
Second, the other reason cited in the article was to prevent protests of the G8 summit. This is incredible. The rest of the world would be criticized if the host country prevented protests at the G8 summit and the US will as well. And it should be. Now, don't get me wrong. Violent protests should result in some serious charges, especially against the organizers. It is up to these organizers to keep the protest peaceful. However, with a President that was a founding member of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), I would be surprised if he does in fact sign this bill into law. If he does, I wonder how his fellow community organizers will feel.
However, the reasons for passage that congress gave are only the tip of the iceberg. What this bill does is prevent protests whenever the secret service is involved in security. Really? That means that no one will be able to protest any Presidential candidate, or even the conventions. So much for freedom of speech. Although I do believe that this bill will not survive a review by the supreme court, the court wouldn't even be giving the argument until October and they may not hear the case until next year. That gets all the politicians past the 2012 election without having to deal with protest from the American people.
I believe that this is a travesty. In the House, only three representatives voted against the bill. What amazes me is that these three were Republicans. I thought it was the Democrats that supported the free speech rights of the population. I thought it was the Democrats that would not support such a bill. Unfortunately, most Republican also voted for it as well. In the Senate, the vote was by unanimous consent, which means we do not know who voted for it or who voted against it. What a way to stay incognito on this subject.
I think that this is one of those times that, if the President signs the bill into law, that the American population should go out and purposefully violate this law and force the government's hand. I, for one, would go to Washington DC and protest in front of the White House so that I could get arrested. I am sure that if the American people saw this bill for what it is, a power grab by the government, that they would vote out every one of their representatives that passed such a law.
Click Here is the link for the article explaining the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment