10 votes

Death of the 1ST Ammendment: House Passes “Trespass Bill” That Makes Protests Illegal

Alexander Higgins
March 8, 2012

New “trespass bill” makes it a federal offense to protest government business or functions, or against people or places under Secret Service protection

The U.S. congress is pushing a bill into law under the innocent pretense of making protests at the White House illegal.

The new legislation just passed by the house H.R. 347, informally known as the “Trespass Bill”, goes far beyond the White House and will outlaw peaceful protests in an almost endless possible combinations of situations.

The bill begins by making it illegal to enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds, which are defined as any location where the Secret Service or any person under protection of the secret service is located or at any place designated as a special event of national significance.

read more http://12160.info/profiles/blog/show?id=2649739%3ABlogPost%3...

"Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The legislators

are trying to protect themselves from the people, whom they are selling down the river with their treason.

It isn't going to help. In the end, they'll pay the price.

This is what Tyrants and Despots do...

Another straw added to the back. I doubt if it will be "the" straw, but it is another straw.

I wonder which straw will be "the" straw...

meekandmild's picture

Impossible for law, which violates the Constitution to be valid

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the
Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

This is BAD!

This is BAD!

To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!

I just read that the Senate Version of this S. 1794 was passed

by "UNANIMOUS CONSENT". Does this mean Rand Paul consented to this? If someone can please clarify this, it would be appreciated. This is upsetting.

Found this

(S.1794 passed with unanimous consent, no voting records were kept of which Senators approved).

This link can be used to contact any member of the US Senate regarding their vote and the lack of transparency on such an important issue.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...

sharkhearted's picture

Time to light....

...the torches!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

They are trying to cover every angle

for when the people start rioting.

Ut Oh!

Think? This protects the G8 Summit! All criminals!!!!!! Globalism at it's best!

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .

What Part of

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." that they don't understand?

I hate to say it, but I see a riot coming.

The first time they try to slip an SS agent into a public gathering in order to claim the right to disperse it, the people will pull a 'Hell no, We won't go!' moment, and then the water cannons will come out.