A moment of silence for the first amendment

Buh bye, Obama holdover, you should have already been dismissed.

Gold Dragon is preoccupied with the inner workings of our government. Why? Seems he spends an inordinate amount of time on this forum attempting to influence opinion. Strange. I spend zero time invading the space of Aussies.

 

This was a knife in the back by Secretary Esper. You do know that 8 previous Presidents have used the Insurrection Act in one form another, right? The most specious of these was President Eisenhower's use of Federal troops to escort children into the Little Rock, Arkansas school system. There was no violence there, no "insurrection" to quell, only a Supreme Court ruling to enforce. He used Federalized National Guard troops and active duty elements of the 101st Airborne Division nonetheless.

 

And now he hustles to save his job, & influence by reversing course.

 

Media shamed for running with 'Trump-gassed-protesters' narrative

A veteran writer is calling out reporters and their employers for claiming authorities in the nation’s capital sickeningly attacked peaceful protesters to clear a path for President Donald Trump and a photo-op.

The Washington Post, NPR, The New York Times, NPR, NBC News, and other media outlets reported late Monday that Park Police fired throat-choking tear gas near the White House to allow the President to walk through Lafayette Park to St. John’s Episcopal Church after he delivered a Rose Garden speech.

The only problem with those claims, writes Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist, is that the media lied and exaggerated to create an anti-Trump “narrative” without waiting for facts from the agencies involved.

“They spun a tale of violent, jack-booted cops running rampant through the streets over innocent docile protesters, using tear gas to clear the area,” Hemingway wrote in a piece published Tuesday. “It turns out none of that was true.”

Hours after the media ran with the story of innocent Americans tear-gassed at Lafayette Park (see video below) across from the White House, a reporter for Washington’s WTOP quoted a Park Police spokesman who said smoke bombs, not tear gas, were used to dispel a crowd that was not, in fact, a peaceful gathering.

Media shamed for running with 'Trump-gassed-protesters' narrative

 

Facts were no barrier to their narrative. They spun a tale of violent, jack-booted cops running rampant through the streets over innocent docile protesters, using tear gas to clear the area. It turns out none of that was true.

Every single major media outlet falsely reported that Park Police were unprovoked when they used “tear gas” to clear the area. If any of that were true, it might mark the first time in history that cops without gas masks launched tear gas in an area that the president of the United States easily walked through minutes later.

For the media, however, these actions were further proof that Orange Man Bad is literally the worst, restoring rule of law is criminal, and standing in front of a church holding a Bible is an assault on the American conscience. They focused on how the Park Police had cleared the area ahead of the city-wide curfew declared by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.

After thousands of false tweets, print stories, and broadcast stories to the contrary, local journalist Neal Augenstein of WTOP reported that a Park Police source said “tear gas was never used — instead smoke canisters were deployed, which don’t have an uncomfortable irritant in them.” Further, the source said the crowd was dispersed because of projectiles being thrown by the “peaceful protesters” at the Park Police and because “peaceful protesters” had climbed on top of a structure in Lafayette Park that had been burned the prior night.


Media Falsely Claimed Violent Riots Were Peaceful And That Tear Gas Was Used Against Rioters

 

Yeah, I just heard that. He must've forgot for a moment that President Trump IS the Commander-in-Chief.

 

Perhaps the Dems still need him in that position to further help undermine the government? Oops.

 

But there was no affront to the 1st Amendment in the instance you cite. The people were not arrested, just moved. Now, if you want to know about a real affront to the 1st Amendment, go read what several Democrat governors did in shutting down religious worship during the virus scare. No executive order by any governor can override the right of the people to worship as they please and when they please. If there ever was a 1st Amendment violation that was it!

 

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government. I know that the pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage folks say otherwise because of the 14th amendment, but I, along with a lot of pro-life and pro-traditional marriage folks, do not accept that liberal interpretation.

 

No it doesn't. The state of New Jersey for instance cannot shut down your church. Or deny you the right to own a firearm. Or take away your free speech. Or deny you due process. Or any other of the things that are in the Federal Constitution. Where do you get your information?

Though I agree with you on those issues, there have been Supreme Court rulings concerning them. Until there is a different ruling by the high court on them, they are now the "law of the land".

 

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law"

"It is a telling indictment of the incorporation doctrine that nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about incorporating any part of the Bill of Rights. ...

We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights."

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

 

Yeah, and? Something rejected by one Congress can be accepted by another. Are you seriously trying to tell me that any state can stop you from worshipping or owning a firearm? Even the aforementioned New Jersey, as anti-gun ownership a state as there is, does not bar law abiding people from owning firearms - nor could they. You do remember the Supreme Court ruling (Heller) on the 2nd Amendment, don't you?

The Bill of Rights is active within the whole of the United States and must be adhered to by every state in the Union. Case closed!

 

I guess it all comes down to who should be believed, right? Once again I will reiterate - none of the protestors were arrested, they were just moved away from the area where the President would be walking. They were still able to protest, albeit at a distance from the President and those other officials who accompanied him. Sour grapes on your part.

Now, tell us about your 1st Amendment.

 

Yes, I am. I am an originalist in applying the U.S. Constitution. Now, I imagine if you look at tour state constitution that you will find what you are looking for there.

Here is Arkansas’s:

“Sec. 5. The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

Sec.6. The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and all persons may freely write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right. ...

Sec. 24. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship; or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, denomination or mode of worship, above any other.“

 

Well that is in Arkansas. So what happens in states whose constitutions do not have that stated provision?: States like New Jersey; New York; Maryland; Iowa; California; Minnesota; or Maryland?

Are you saying the citizens of those states DO NOT have the constitutionally protected right to firearms ownership?

 

Why do assume those states don’t have those protections in their state constitutions? I would be shocked if any state does not. Since this is clearly a burr under your saddle to agree with the liberals/progressives on the 14th Amendment, why don’t you ease your mind and look up the various state constitutions and see if you can prove your point? Then you won’t have to be on the pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage side of the 14th Amendment.

However, even if there is a state constitution that doesn’t have similar Bill Of Restrictions language on state government power, that would not negate that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to apply items such as freedom of worship based on the U.S. Constitution to the states. That is historical fact. And, yes, I know nowadays that right and left don’t care for objective facts and that each prefer their own “alternative facts”.