The words NO LAW are as simple as they are unequivocal. They do not tolerate exceptions. They do not include phrases like "except around federal buildings" or "unless someone important might be nearby." The words NO LAW are stark and uncompromising. So when both parties and both houses of congress take it upon themselves to ignore these stark words in the first provision of our Constitution, it falls to us to remind them that NO means NO.
The word "unconstitutional" is thrown around all too freely. However, in the case of
H.R. 347, the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,"
that word applies.
This bill, sponsored by Florida congressmen Thomas Rooney (R ) and Ted Deutch (D ), was "held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation."
Non-controversial? Really?
The bill's establishing paragraph, Section 1, reads as follows:
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
`(a) Whoever:
`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;`
(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is:
`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if:
`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
`(c) In this section:
`(1) the term `restricted buildings or groundsâ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area:
`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.
In short, "Any person who shows up to protest or petition government officials, or even aspiring government officials, is guilty of committing a felony."
This was passed by unanimous consent of both parties, in both houses. The total of dissenting votes, between both houses, was six representatives, with 72 representatives abstaining.
So now it stands to We The People to demand of our congressional representatives the following question:
HOW THE HELL DOES THIS NOT VIOLATE THE WORDS "NO LAW"?!?!
The First Amendment reads as follows:
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.
Please note again the words NO LAW. This does not brook exceptions. The only possible ambiguity here is the definition of "peaceably," and any glance at history - especially this past year - shows that the word means whatever people in power choose to let it mean. How do you address that subject? However they want you to. Or else.
No.
This needs to be our line in the sand.
This is not about Democrats or Republicans, Tea Party or Occupy, Rush Limbaugh or Sandra Fluke. [1] This is about one simple question:
Can Congress break the Bill of Rights or not?
Fellow Americans, whomever you are, whatever you do, whatever other lines divide us at this time, we need to make a stand here, or else lose everything our Constitution assures.
Contract your representative. Contact the president. At this time, the bill is not yet law.
If it passes into law, then the Constitution means nothing.
Whatever else you may do today, take time to demand that H.R. 347 be withdrawn, vetoed, or both.
Hereâs the presidentâs information:
202-456-1111
202-456-1414
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
And here's Congress.
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Speak now, or forever lose your rights.
--------------------------------------
1 - And now we know what that particular dog-and-pony show was meant to distract us from.