Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
Is the cemetery not private grounds? Also, this is not entirely true... there are regulations as to what activites you CAN participate in on public grounds. Private property... have at it, if you have permission, of course. Again, based on the strictest verbiage of the First Amendment, I would have to say that any laws against these actions would not directly violate that amendment.
|
That depends on which cemetary. Some are public and some are private. As far as what you can and can't do on public property, you are of course correct but only up to a point. He is doing nothing other than being annoying, and that is protected speach, regardless of how much of a pain in the ass he is. That's why the KKK is allowed to rally in public and counterdemonstrators are allowed across the street. Both groups have equal right to express their views. The communist party advocates the overthrow of the government at a point to be determined (they've taken out the violent part), and they are a very legal organization, although I think that you'll find that their meetings have been pretty sparsely attended in the past 10 years or so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Is this not aiding the enemy? I mean, not to be a stickler, but fighting against American troops is certainly counter-productive to the war. And during a time of war, while it may be splitting hairs, I could see his acts as Treasonous and punishable as such. But that's just me...
From the strictest sense of the Constitution, I don't think he has a leg to stand on, so to speak.
|
I think that you need to reread the clause above. Agreeing with someone does not equate to giving aid or comfort. Phelps is not "fighting" against any troops since he is not armed nor is he assualting them with anything but language. Please show me where he has given any MATERIAL aid to the enemy, material meaning goods and services. He has done neither.
Again, just because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he looses the right to say it. I think that he needs to stop preying on families in their darkest hour, but that doesn't mean that he has to. He hasn't broken a law, only the boundaries of good taste, which cannot be mandated by the state. In the strictest sense of the Constitution, including the First Amendment, he has not aided the enemy nor given them comfort. By your same logic, FDR was right to intern all the Japanese-Americans at the beginning of WWII because some of them agreed with Japanese expansionism.