Posts Tagged ‘Legal Ignoramuses’

I really think its time for remedial instruction for Jim Moran and at least one of the members of law enforcement working outside of his town hall events in Virginia.   They obviously have had some trouble with certain key concepts vital to good governance here in this country.

First, Representative Moran accuses a Constituent of being an impostor, and demands to see his I.D. before he will deign to speak to the impertinent peasant.

Now I’m just a country lawyer, but when I see a member of the U.S. House of Representatives refuse to engage a constituent and answer a question at an event set up for precisely that purpose with out seeing his I.D. first, when we are not allowed to demand that voters show I.D. to vote, I think that something is very, very wrong with the elected officials in this country.  I also think that I would have liked to see the camera pan a little more so I could see the person with the wheelbarrow following behind Moran, carrying his testicles, because unless you’re insane, I think it takes an extraordinarily large pair to demand that a constituent show you I.D. before you speak to him at what had already proven to be a very contentious meeting.

But that wasn’t the full story.  Outside, we had Officer Cheeks (and jowls) deciding that it he was the arbiter of what political speech would be permitted, and what political speech would not be permitted.  He was assisted by someone who I can only assume, from the attitude and information shared, must be a teacher there at the school where the meeting was held.

Now in reference to the “helpful bystander’s” remarks first:  Yes, there are limitations on the freedom of speech imposed legally on school grounds.  However, they are imposed on students, during school hours and at school functions.  These same restrictions never have been enforced against adults present for non-school functions, and even a leftist judge would have a difficult time trying to impose such restrictions on adults visiting the campus for the purpose of listening and speaking to their duly elected representative.  Political Speech is the gold standard of speech when it comes to legal restrictions.  The signs would qualify. 

As to Officer Cheeks:  If you’re going to allow political signs that are just writing, and not ones with pictues and text, prepare to get sued.  The only possible reason to single this sign out for disparate treatment would be if it was obscene or pornographic, and even then, if you were dealing with someone who knows more about the law then you obviously do, Officer You-Can’t-Bring-That-Sign-Or-I’ll-Arrest-You-For-Trespassing, they might just let you arrest them and then sue you for violating their civil liberties.  Federal section 1983 lawsuits for civil rights violations can be a bitch, and when the other associated charges for false imprisonment, and violations of state law get added, they’ll really cut in to the doughnut budget there, hoss.   If you’re any example, this compelling government interest in diversity that we keep hearing about is yet another example of the new face of racism eliminating excellence as goal in our public institutions, and replacing it with yet another entitlement that gets it wrong.

Read Full Post »