Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cape Girardeau police officer ordered to pay fees in flag lawsuit
Southeast Missourian ^ | Scott Moyers

Posted on 03/03/2013 10:24:06 AM PST by netguide

Cape Girardeau police officer ordered to pay fees in flag lawsuit By Scott Moyers ~ Southeast Missourian A federal judge ordered Cape Girardeau police officer Matthew Peters and the state of Missouri to pay more than $62,000 in attorneys' fees and costs in connection to an arrest he made in 2009 for flag desecration.

(Excerpt) Read more at semissourian.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: banglist; flagdesecration; law

1 posted on 03/03/2013 10:24:20 AM PST by netguide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netguide

“The court cited the 8th District Court of Appeals in saying a public officer has an obligation to not enforce unconstitutional laws. Peters’ contesting the lawsuit made him liable for the fees, according to federal law.”


2 posted on 03/03/2013 10:29:51 AM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netguide

Maybe if more police officers are forced to dip into their own pockets as consequence for their actions, their disregard of rights will stop.


3 posted on 03/03/2013 10:30:37 AM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netguide

Good on the Judge. Cops need to know that enforcing in-Constitutional laws carries a heavy price tag.


4 posted on 03/03/2013 10:31:37 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
From the comments:

The Judge is following federal law. If there is a valid false arrest claim (and this was a bad arrest) then the losing party pays the attorneys fees. It's standard procedure in every federal case like this. For some reason this paper decided to highlight this particular case (I'm shocked). The officer himself won't be paying a dime. It will come from the city for enacting and keeping an idiotic ordinance that's clearly unconstitutional.

I am against flag burning as well but the law is clear that it is constitutional. For a city to enact an ordinance basically directing officers that it is illegal to burn a flag is just stupid. I don't know if that is the case here, but am guessing it is. -- Posted by Ck1993 on Fri, Mar 1, 2013, at 5:28 PM


5 posted on 03/03/2013 10:34:20 AM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

So cops and prosecutors can be held personally liable for enforcing unconstitutional gun laws that state and city politicians are enacting?


6 posted on 03/03/2013 10:35:04 AM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

The more important ramifications of this might come into play when these state legislatures pass unconstitutional weapons bans.


7 posted on 03/03/2013 10:39:46 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
it does appear that precedent has been set...
8 posted on 03/03/2013 10:40:18 AM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Depends on how much the judge respects the law.


9 posted on 03/03/2013 10:42:07 AM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

“Depends on how much the judge respects the law.”

Haha . . . that can be pretty iffy sometimes.


10 posted on 03/03/2013 10:56:15 AM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Depends on how much the judge respects the law.

Yes, on a case level, but if enough of these cases end this way, there will be an impact. Everyone does not have to carry a gun for that to have an impact.

11 posted on 03/03/2013 10:56:23 AM PST by School of Rational Thought (Fun for women ages 21 through 35)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: netguide

Looks to be a Property Rights case.

Man stood in the front yard that he owns and destroyed a piece of property that he owned.

Tate police and the State of Missouri have no right to interfere with what the man did on his own property.


12 posted on 03/03/2013 10:59:15 AM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netguide

With all these gun bans in just about every State, cops should be REAL careful about enforcing such laws.


13 posted on 03/03/2013 10:59:34 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

Only true if it is not the Koran or some other Islamic artifact


14 posted on 03/03/2013 11:10:22 AM PST by pennboricua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"I am against flag burning as well but the law is clear that it is constitutional"

Try burning an Obama Poster, and see who can win THAT case......

In the case of flag-burners, a neighborhood group could "convince" the perp to go elsewhere with their attention-grabbing episodes.

15 posted on 03/03/2013 11:17:07 AM PST by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: netguide
He stood in his front yard, on a public road—to be in the public's face—and slashed an American flag? I don't see why that's not fighting words, yelling-fire-in-a-theater actionable, for starters on grounds of disturbing the peace. I also favor flag-desecration ordinances and bans on public displays or sale of pornography. Public morality has to be allowed to protect itself. Think about it: If the guy really wanted to slash a flag privately, he would have done so. But he wouldn't have, because he's an America-hating jerk.

The public space has legitimate rights to protection from genuine scandal—and I mean as traditionally understood, not PC specialness. This is not inconsistent with free speech (flag-desecration isn't speech anyway), and was never considered so until the insane Supreme Court struck down anti-obscenity laws starting in 1966 with the Fanny Hill decision.

As Adams pointed out, a republican form of government can only survive with a people who are moral and religious. We need to be forthright enough to defend our flag and the 10 Commandments, and our guns as well. We are Americans, and we entitled to the principles of public order and genuine morality.

16 posted on 03/03/2013 11:26:14 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netguide; AtlasStalled; USNBandit; Chode; CodeToad

IMMUNITY
I am sure you have heard ELECTED and APPOINTED officials say, they have immunity from prosecution for any thing they have done wrong. Prosecutors and police officers are notorious for that statement. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case that says they are liable. George D Owen V. City of Independence, Missouri. Decided April 16, 1980. When you look this up scroll down to 25 See, e.g., Globe 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (For Owen v Independence Click (HERE)


George M. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David HAYSE, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette
District Court, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 93-5382.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1993.
E.D.Ky., No. 92-00510; Forester, J.
E.D.Ky.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before: GUY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
George M. Wallace, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Wallace’s suit was filed against Fayette County District Court Judge David Hayse. Judge Hayse was sued in his official capacity, and Wallace sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The magistrate judge’s report determined that Judge Hayse was absolutely immune from suit because the allegations of Wallace’s complaint indicated that Judge Hayse was acting in his judicial capacity. Over Wallace’s objections, the district judge determined that when a judge is performing an adjudicative function, he is absolutely immune from all suits brought pursuant to Sec. 1983. On appeal, Wallace argues that judicial immunity does not extend to Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.
In Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), the court concluded “that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.” See also Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2416 (1993); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir.1984). Therefore, we conclude that the district court committed error when it dismissed Wallace’s suit based upon the determination that Judge Hayse enjoyed absolute immunity against Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
1 F.3d 1243, Wallace v. Hayse, (C.A.6 (Ky.) 1993


17 posted on 03/03/2013 11:27:50 AM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"As Adams pointed out, a republican form of government can only survive with a people who are moral and religious."

You either have free speech or you don't. The First Amendment is there to protect the right of the individual to voice his opinion AND to illustrate it through physical actions as well. You may not agree with it but it is his right to burn the flag in protest. Its what makes this country great.

18 posted on 03/03/2013 11:37:17 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

When the muzzies burn our flag do you run down to the airport fly there and give em hell?


19 posted on 03/03/2013 11:42:14 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

“I don’t see why that’s not fighting words”

For the same reason we don’t let liberals jail you and punish you for saying something negative about their “Lord and Savior”, their “dad”, Obama.

Hell, we could REQUIRE you to stand in your front yard, display a flag, salute it and say the pledge or else if it weren’t for free speech.

If those are “fighting words” then you need to seriously grow the Hell up.


20 posted on 03/03/2013 11:52:14 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
You either have free speech or you don't. The First Amendment is there to protect the right of the individual to voice his opinion AND to illustrate it through physical actions as well.

The Founders did not agree. Blasphemy laws were routine in those times (until recent times, actually), as were obscenity laws, as were any number of local and state ordinances against loitering and incitement to riot. It's always been understood in America that public disorder—but not political speech—has its legitimate limits. The reason is that there's no freedom without public order. Libertarianism, taken to its anarchic extreme, never founded a surviving state.

I don't see what Federal law should have to do with this case anyway. The whole principle behind the Bill of Rights is that Congress shall pass no law. It purposely leaves the states free to pass such laws. If you don't like Cape Girardeau or MIssouri, you can move, and make the towns and states compete for your presence. The progressive Reds don't like this genuine diversity of custom. They want to enforce their hellish form of "universal diversity," where everyone is forced to confront Leftists burning flags and being obscene, and union thugs threatening businesses where they never worked. Leftist assaults on public space aren't freedom—they're totalitarianism.

21 posted on 03/03/2013 11:56:42 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: netguide
Good decision by the judge.

I don't like flag burning, but it's constitutional. On that same note, I'm not going to shed tears if someone gets the crap kicked out of him for burning the flag.

22 posted on 03/03/2013 12:01:31 PM PST by Darren McCarty (If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

Immunity? Yeah, right. That’s why smart cops carry liability policies.


23 posted on 03/03/2013 12:01:52 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
When the muzzies burn our flag do you run down to the airport fly there and give em hell?

I'm for it. When do we leave?

Speaking of which, there's nothing in our actual Constitution that says we have to admit, or bar, Moslem immigrants to America.

24 posted on 03/03/2013 12:26:24 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
He stood in his front yard, on a public road

A front yard is not a public road. It is private property. That's different than the public square.

He's an America hating jerk, but that in itself isn't illegal, nor should be.

As far as obscenity laws go, the problem there is that they are hard to define.

We are Americans, and we entitled to the principles of public order and genuine morality.

Morality in whose eyes? Morality is something that is between me, my conscience, my family, friends, and God. Not government. Not "society." If I say that I don't support gay behavior in public, that's now in many eyes as immoral has calling an 70 year old church lady a word that begins with c that isn't in my vocabulary. I don't trust "public order" anymore either, not with how school admins and our government officials run things.

Distasteful behavior is bad, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal with misdemeanors and felonies that goes on the record (for everything these days). Sometimes an old fashion arse-kicking is the better solution.

25 posted on 03/03/2013 12:27:30 PM PST by Darren McCarty (If most people were more than keyboard warriors, we might have won the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
When the muzzies burn our flag do you run down to the airport fly there and give em hell?

I'm for it. When do we leave?

Speaking of which, there's nothing in our actual Constitution that says we have to admit, or bar, Moslem immigrants to America.

26 posted on 03/03/2013 12:33:10 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Absolutely right....while I think the guys a jerk he has every right to be a jerk. Problem arises when legislators pass unconstitutional laws....like ones that restrict a constitutional amendment!!


27 posted on 03/03/2013 12:44:34 PM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

OK ????


28 posted on 03/03/2013 12:48:32 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Best keep this precedent case handy. (BTW I’m going to use your tag line. Royalty check is in the mail.)


29 posted on 03/03/2013 1:31:07 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"I don't see what Federal law should have to do with this case anyway. The whole principle behind the Bill of Rights is that Congress shall pass no law."

You don't get to pick and choose parts of the Constitution that suit you and ignore other parts that stop you from doing what you want. That is the Liberal/Progressives ploy.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Free Speech is covered in the First Amendment. The First Amendment recognizes the right and by the passage of that Amendment the Government of the United States has the power to protect that Right. Thus the Tenth Amendment states that any powers "NOT" delegated to the Government of the United States nor prohibited by them are reserved to the States. Thus the States have no right to limit Free Speech because the Fed Gov has the power to protect it AND is ordered to do so by the law of the land!

This is 1st year civics stuff. Might I suggest you sign up for a refresher course.

30 posted on 03/03/2013 1:33:21 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
i think we'll be seeing it again soon... and you can send the check to Jim Robinson - FreeRepublic 8^)
31 posted on 03/03/2013 1:36:44 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Chode

They’re going to keep pushing hard until the 2014 elections. After that, if they win or lose, all bets are off.


32 posted on 03/03/2013 1:43:26 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Thus the States have no right to limit Free Speech because the Fed Gov has the power to protect it AND is ordered to do so by the law of the land!

This is 1st year civics stuff.

It's the legacy of Roosevelt's court, and contrary to the Constitution. I'm sure you're a good conservative, but you're trying to realize our civilization's revival using the legacy of Leftist thinking—an America whose freedoms were all granted from Washington. The USC was never designed to do that. The First Amendment protects us from the Federal government. FUBO and his Congress are forbidden from interfering with your unflattering articles or speeches about him. And the 1A pretty much protects us from the State governments, because the people insist on liberty at the State level as well. That's why the states all have their own constitutions. But the Founders never intended, and never wrote into our Constitution, any powers for the U.S. Supreme Court—of all things—to outlaw local ordinances against loitering, blasphemy, obscenity, flag-burning, or, for that matter, abortion, which they have falsely claimed the authority to do.

The key legal (as opposed to moral) reason Roe is absurd is that murder is a state matter, and the Feds have no authority there. The reason Federal rulings on laws against loitering and flag-burning (except on Federal property) are absurd is that ordinary public order is a local matter. Meanwhile, notice there's a whole six-pack of laws peculiar to Federal property that restrict our liberties all over the place.

The Founders put their faith in people's willingness to change their own local governments, or if need be, to move to better jurisdictions—rather than in Federal micro-management. The problem is that, when "freedoms" come from Washington, they're too vulnerable to big lobbies, and mostly wind up being the freedom of an incompetent applicant to get hired by you, the freedom of the Federal government to make you pay for and build a handicap ramp to your office door, the freedom of the Feds to insist that you make more girls at your college go out for intercollegiate sports—or cut the number of boys' teams . . . and so forth. Post-Roosevelt (and Wilson) the Feds dispense a lot of theft and tyranny, because they are too distant to be sufficiently accountable to the people on such small-scale matters.

Small-town small-mindedness was always an obstacle in America's more Constitutional days. But you could always move to a livelier burg. Today, with the arrogant Feds crawling everywhere, there's almost nowhere to run from Big Sis and the EPA. The more I know about FUBO, the better I like Original Intent.

33 posted on 03/03/2013 2:21:19 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Thus the States have no right to limit Free Speech because the Fed Gov has the power to protect it AND is ordered to do so by the law of the land!

I should point out that this statement is untrue. Here's the 1A:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You may be alluding to the "incorporation doctrine," a Supreme Court power-grab stuffed into our jurisprudence in Everson vs. Board of Education in 1947, that in effect claimed authority over essentially all state law pertaining to the First Amendment. It's Rooseveltian socialism—and to get there, the Court had to reverse its earlier opinion in Lochner vs. New York. It's all a corrupt mess. We need to go back to the government described by the Founders. They had common sense.

34 posted on 03/03/2013 2:36:56 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
100%
35 posted on 03/03/2013 4:05:56 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Sorry but no, the Tenth Amendment is clear. The States and municipalities and towns can't override the Constitution or its Amendments.

By using your interpretation then the individual states or towns can legally ban people from owning guns. If they can write laws in opposition to the First Amendment then everything else is game.

Bottom line the First tells us Speech is free and the Tenth tells us any law opposing such is unconstitutional. (save for where such can do harm like yelling fire in a crowded theater)

36 posted on 03/03/2013 5:35:50 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
By using your interpretation then the individual states or towns can legally ban people from owning guns.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. No kidding, Heller would not have been a big case if applying the 2A to individual citizens wasn't a novelty. It's a novelty created originally by the Left, and they're furious about that. The Left, by applying the 1A and so on to individuals while bypassing state laws, opened the door to Heller with the Everson case in 1947. The immediate fruit of Everson was all kinds of stupidity, ranging from obscenity rulings and Roe to Miranda—all illegally denying state sovereignty. Then Heller argued for applying the 2A directly to individuals. Of course I like that result. But it was a case of making sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. In Heller, the good guys argued, "If you want to tromp all over state sovereignty on speech in various novel ways through 1A claims, you have to do the same thing for gun rights, and give the unvarnished Second Amendment directly to individuals from the Federal level."

It's not Federalism, but what can you do? Federal "gun control" is unconstitutional, too, but we'll have to work on that through testosterone in Congress.

The point is that if we claw our way back to Federalism, we'll have sane, competing state governments, and we won't need Heller—which was a case of using bad Constitutional law to give the people back their rightful liberties through a back door. But to get America back, we have to whack the Federal government to 1/1000th its current size, and let the states take back their sovereignty. It's the only way all parties will act responsibly. We'll wind up with sane gun laws—i.e., the only gun laws will be laws against armed robbery.

37 posted on 03/03/2013 7:16:55 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. No kidding,"

So then your interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that it can be trumped by State law or City Ordinances.

Fair enough, that is what is great about the USA you are allowed to a view that is totally inept and ignorant.

However you are on the wrong forum. You should check out DU or MSNBC.com. Their Views line up perfectly with yours they believe you can reinterpret the Founding Documents to suit your desired outcome.

However Conservatives know that the Bill of Rights are their to protect the rights of the people by limiting the power of Government to tell us what to say or tell us who to pray to or tell us whether we can own guns, etc.

Do you seriously think the Founding Fathers went to all that trouble passing the first ten Amendments through Congress and then getting them passed by the State Governments just so 9 town councilmen could invalidate them with the stroke of a pen?

Sorry Sparky, but you have been indoctrinated in Liberal/Progressive ideology. You need to see to that.

38 posted on 03/04/2013 3:39:57 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
you have been indoctrinated in Liberal/Progressive ideology

Look up the cases. I will be interested to hear what you find, and genuinely interested in correcting anything I have said that is wrong.

And get better manners. I did not mock or belittle anything you said. I respectfully and cheerfully disagreed with parts of what you said, taking some care to point out where I agreed—and also conceding that some of what I was relating might sound strange, because such is history. There is no excuse for personal remarks on this forum. We are all conservatives discussing the foundations of our liberty in good faith. Assume it, and act accordingly.

39 posted on 03/04/2013 4:01:42 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Look up the cases? The supreme court ruled People of African decent weren't citizens.

Does that make it right?

Bottom line: You are wrong. The Bill of Rights means people have the right to political dissent and that means burning the American Flag.

It doesn't mean some prissy town councilmen or some fatcat State legislators can revoke that right with the stroke of a pen. The Founding Fathers were serious. Those are NOT suggestions enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are the law of the land.

40 posted on 03/04/2013 4:35:39 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Look up the cases? . . .

If you can't do the work, you won't really know where our liberties come from. They come from the Founders' applied philosophy of letting people alone. That included (at the time) letting local governments solve minor problems. Which flag-burning is. Your emotional reactions don't correspond to the way this issue developed in history.

You can come out in favor of gun rights and the First Amendment, which I'm glad you do. (Didn't see you comment on abortion.) But until you do the work of reading at least a bit of the history of where our laws came from, you won't understand what actually happens when government says it wants to do this or that. If all you rest on is your feelings about the way things ought to be, the effect is that you know nothing.

41 posted on 03/04/2013 7:56:34 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"But until you do the work of reading at least a bit of the history of where our laws came from, you won't understand what actually happens when government says it wants to do this or that."

Ahhh I guarantee you I've read more history last year then most people have in a lifetime.

I read on average 4 books a week most of them history. You cite cases as proof that the Bill of rights can be invalidated by local authority. When in fact the supreme court has ruled exactly opposite. In 1989 Texas vs. Johnson the court stated "again" that physical actions such as flag burning are considered an act of Free Speech and thus protected by the First Amendment and such laws stating otherwise are invalid.

Yet amazingly you forgot to cite this case. Is it because you were ignorant of it or because it blows a hole in your entire argument?

No matter how you try and wiggle around with your verbal acrobatics the bottom line is State Law nor Town Ordinances can over ride the Bill of Rights.

Its the law of the land.

42 posted on 03/04/2013 8:16:34 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

can =can’t


43 posted on 03/04/2013 8:18:03 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
In 1989 Texas vs. Johnson the court stated "again" that physical actions such as flag burning are considered an act of Free Speech

Now we're getting somewhere. Notice the date: 1989. That was after the postwar Supreme Court power-grab I mentioned (Everson, 1947). Everson was the first time the USSC arrogated to itself the right to overrule had always been considered state matters by claiming that the First Amendment gave them that right. It was a brand-new maneuver for the USSC. Nothing in the Constitution gives them the right to make new state law. Not surprisingly, they'd ruled that they didn't have that right in 1905, in Lochner.

Now, you or I might agree with this or that decision the Court made after that on a Free Speech issue, but it was a violation of states' rights, and because of that, a lot of evil followed. The US Constitution is an agreement among the States, which is why each state has its own state constitution, complete with a First Amendment. After 1947 came a whole host of decisions many conservatives consider wrongly decided and none of the Court's business: the obscenity cases of the 1960s, Miranda, Roe vs Wade, countless decisions creating "special" groups' rights to other people's stuff, Lawrence vs. Texas, which declared invalid a Texas law against sodomy, ObamaCare, and lots more to come, possibly including homosexual marriage, and all unconstitutional.

You're attached to the idea of the USC granting First Amendment rights out in the sticks. I don't like local busybodies either. The only thing worse is . . . Federal busybodies, who don't have to worry about me voting against them or keying their cars. How do we like the Federalization of absolutely everything—what gas you can put in your car, what light-bulbs you can buy, what gun you can own, what shed you can build near your stream, and what toilet you can flush? How's that working out for you? The only way I can move away from it is to leave the country. The Founders never designed it this way, because they knew that subsidiarity—handling things at the lowest level possible—would yield imperfect results, but better results than the rule of minutia from above which is tyranny. We can thank Wilson and Roosevelt for Michelle Obama's fat-butt lectures on what your kids should eat for lunch.

The First Amendment is the law of the land because it's in the US Constitution. Not because the Supreme Court says so. Their job is to apply, not invent. Nowhere in the USC does it say the USSC is the final arbiter of what's Constitutional. Marshall claimed that right, but he had a dog in that fight. The branches are co-equal, and they jostle each other all the time. Obama is trying to take power from both Congress and the Court. The Founders wrote the USC in plain English for a reason: It's up to us, by design, to smack our government in line—local, state, or Federal.

44 posted on 03/04/2013 6:45:40 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Blather blather blather...

Sorry its not gonna work. You claimed that the States AND the Towns/Cities have the right to over ride the Bill of Rights with a stroke of the pen.

They don't. the SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of laws. Its their job. They deemed your stance is wrong and anyone with a high school civics class under their belt can read the 10th and know the SCOTUS is right in ruling so.

You are wrong. States Rights do not trump the Bill of Rights. It cannot be clearer and no amount of blather and misdirection on your part will change the fact you were and are wrong!

"Nowhere in the USC does it say the USSC is the final arbiter of what's Constitutional. "

Actually it says that very thing:

Article III Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Such gives the judicial power to the Federal Supreme Court and its lower courts.

Section 2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Translation: Federal Supreme Court and its lower courts can rule on any case that has a bearing on the Constitution they see fit to grant cert to.

Which once again proves you wrong.

45 posted on 03/04/2013 7:54:53 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Here are the powers of the US Supreme Court, as duly quoted by you, and I thank you for doing so:

Section 2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The powers all concern controversies between the Federal government and other entities, controversies between citizens of different states, or between citizens with land claims that involve other state governments. Nowhere does it simply say "in all matters arising between citizens of the same state," or anything to that effect. And remember our Constitution grants powers to the Federal government that are "few and defined." No extras, no assumptions, no penumbras, no gimmes.

All of the post-1947 decisions I cited concerned matters between citizens of the same state. That's what made those decisions without precedent in the first 160 years of the Constitution's existence. The Court didn't go there because the USC doesn't empower them to, and the other branches were watching. I am not the first to point this out, by any means.

Read more carefully. Read Mark Levin or somebody. You don't understand the difference between Federal government and the sovereign states that created it, and what has changed in their relationship since the Progressives were unleashed in the 20th century. But take heart, you're never too old to learn.

Best regards, over and out.

46 posted on 03/05/2013 6:07:17 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"The powers all concern controversies between the Federal government and other entities, controversies between citizens of different states, or between citizens with land claims that involve other state governments. Nowhere does it simply say "in all matters arising between citizens of the same state," or anything to that effect."

Ahhh NO, those are in addition to the matters concerning the Constitution.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Not "some" cases but instead "ALL" cases arising under the Constitution.

Which again shows you you are wrong.

The qualifiers listed further down in the list are in addition to that statement. The reason being is a State court would have a biased interest determining a case that was between that State and a citizen of another State. And in other examples from the rest of the qualifiers plainly the States would have no right to speak for the USA when dealing with people of a foreign state.

But you keep trying Sparky you may actually get one right by accident once. (but I seriously doubt it.)

47 posted on 03/05/2013 9:51:07 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Reading comprehension.

You should never sign a contract without a lawyer reading it for you. There's nothing else to say.

48 posted on 03/06/2013 8:19:35 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Your Words: "The Founders wrote the USC in plain English for a reason..."

Article 3 Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

As plain as you can get. Not "some" but "all" cases in law and equity under this Constitution.

And thus by you own admission "QED"...

Or as the kids say, game... set... match.

Thanks for playing Sparky.

49 posted on 03/06/2013 11:30:41 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson