Posted on 03/22/2010 1:14:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
Their pictures are a glut on the market. Who wants more?
I bet this is about Michelle being sick and tired of having photos of her butt plastered all over the internet.
LOL
If you’re going to shoot pictures of strangers, why would you shoot pictures of ugly strangers?
If I understand correctly, it is bad juju to some tribes if you have your picture taken.
Thanks for the heads up. Good job.
>The first amendment guarantees this.
Not anymore.
The Fourth Amendment crumbled with the twin towers on September 11, 2001.
You know what we never hear about that other US president families I doubt Ronald Reagan and Nancy tell SS consficate camera
I think other US presidents would give autograph
Yeah when did SS turn into TMZ.com
One of the very, VERY few on the left who was not exercising intellectual vacancy or willful ignorance during the Clinton impeachment. A gentleman and a scholar, one who took a good bit of heat from his own side time and time again.
If the First Family wishes to avoid pictures, they may want to watch the play on video rather than confiscating cellphones and cameras of citizens. I find it outrageous that the Secret Service would consider it within its authority to confiscate phones to avoid annoyance to the First Family.
He was this outraged when Clinton attempted to use Executive Privilege to keep Secret Service agents from being required to testify to their knowledge of matters before Congress or the court.
And he's stinkin' right -- if those cell phones, personal cameras are such an annoying problem for Her Heinie-ness and their princesses, they can wait and watch it in the comfort of the White House theater. Brudder.
The next thing you know we will not be allowed to make any eye contact and must look down when the Messiah and his family pass by.
“Under what authority do they seize personal property?”
Pffffft. Are you referring to that old document, The Consitution?! That’s so passe`.
It’s all State property now.
The secret service is subject to the Bill of Rights too!
Fascism....Tyrants.....Arrogance.....
Will they throw down a couple of bills?
Well, I guess it’s a whole new ballgame.
oh no you didn’t!
You have to give Turley props for putting this out there among his liberal fans. Most lib law profs would either ignore it or use some cockamamie theory why its permissible for Nat Sec. Of course if this was Bush then they’d ALL be up in arms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.