No more protests at national figure events if this bill passes... That includes the President and main GOP candidates. No more G-20 protests allowed. Who needs those pesky amendments anyway? America is a free country whether or not the Bill of Rights is changed, right?
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First  Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on  Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government  officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347  late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted  Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress  officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White  House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but  somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The  wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go  after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White  House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the  power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest  anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House  trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC  legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get  close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal  law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the  government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists  at political events and other outings across America.
The new  legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building  without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function  with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law  stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania  Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president  is visiting —  even temporarily —  is covered, as is any building or  grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered  under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although  such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal  offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with  such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right  to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed,  presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service  protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that  glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big  no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the  Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has  already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to  be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker  Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former  contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he  was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the  text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who  knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without  lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area  where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or  Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the  public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as  is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the  event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under  that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s  concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences  covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside  of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for  guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America.  George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his  administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is  eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of  state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of  national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department  of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While  presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are  awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered  a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created  under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE  list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald  Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and  Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection  awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the  federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign  president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it  could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When  thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring  for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the  grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive  activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal  offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting  such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In  the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On  the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law  enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters  at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is  being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and  given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a  “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot  more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States  Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to  vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday.  Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on  Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it  a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting  even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has  no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government  officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But  criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that  activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our  rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has  overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift  through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US  Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two  months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus  from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch  be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part  about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really.  Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law  professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his  signature with a signing statement that  let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite  detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should  President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect  another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns  the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision,  however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania  Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.
					
					
					
					
					This entry was posted on March 6, 2012 at 3:03 PM and has received 665 views. There are currently 0 comments. 
					Print this entry.