Republicrats and Demolicans respond to the Occupations...

By Michael J. Smith on Sunday March 4, 2012 08:39 PM

... by making it a felony, that can get you a year in the Federal pen, for Occupying any place the Feds don't want you to Occupy. Which of course will turn out to be just about everywhere.

HR 347 -- the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" -- recently passed the Senate on a unanimous vote, and the House with only Ron Paul and somebody else voting against. (Not a single Democrat voted against. Not one.)

To quote the law's wonderfully broad language:

(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' 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.

I especially like 'special event of national significance'. And then of course there are places where somebody protected by the Secret Service 'will' be at some unspecified time in the future.

I shouldn't be surprised at the breathtaking progress of the police state, but I always am. Why is that? It is kind of amazing, really, what a relatively free country this actually was when I was growing up. I didn't think so at the time, but boy, if I had known what was coming....

Comments (12)

It's so cute that they even feel the need to write up a little law about it. It's like insisting that your dolly use a napkin ring before having a fake high tea, even though you're just going to unfold the napkin onto the dolly's lap as soon as you've rolled it up into the ring.

What anal-retentive tyrants. I'm starting to respect Genghis Khan for at least not weenying around this much.

If we had a judiciary that functioned as a judiciary I'd say the legislation stands a good chance of being held unconstitutionally vague.

Unfortunately, the judiciary abdicated its responsibilities with regard to civil liberties at about the time as William Rehnquist became the chief judge.

Happy Jack:

The Supremes upheld the Sedition Act. Was Rehnquist that old?

Rehnquist is dead, which means he's pretty old.

But you're right, he wasn't old enough for the sedition act.

Still, the supreme court did do some good things during the 1950s through 1970s that were comparatively libertine.

Interesting to note, those courts were headed by republicans: Earl Warren and Warren Burger.

With the advent of the Patron Saint of Reactionaries, Ronald Reagan (who appointed Rehnquist), however, all that began to change.

And now the supreme court simply scoffs at the notion of civil liberties. Pathetic.


Not to venture back before black emancipation

But round here since
The state has mustered sufficient means
To massacre. Native tribes concentrate Japanese
and sustain such long term projects as jim crow and industrial union busting
Yes all such have found an end time
Usually thru protracted undaunted struggle



Pied relying on the courts was and will always be

A self dry gulching move


The Fed had a decent stretch too
from the mid 30's to late 40's
However both are wallycrat star chamber ops

As state AG
Warren interned the Japs when necessary

Prequel as sequel

New deal darling at the fed chairman Eccles
Morphed into a serious hazard to full employment in the late 40's


So long as the police state
Is for "them"

Regular Whitey couldn't care less
To this electoral plurality
Passing laws like that
Are about as important as rule changes for
all future north American cricket matches

Paco Picopiedra:

Pied Cow appears to know very little about the law, except to blame Evil Rethuglicans.

Rehnquist was the start?

Hilarious. Sure, it's Rehnquist's fault if you give a free pass to all those ostensible Donklejustices. Exactly.

Void for vagueness? What is this, collegiate (u-grad) constitutional law where surreality is the landscape?

I bet even Glenn Greenwald, the most speciously "legal" mind, knows better than to hang a hat on vagueness.

Oh wait... was that satire, Pied Cow?

(doubt reigns)

Paco Picopiedra:


Bonus Eedjit Points for "reactionary" as qualifier and/or point of discernment. Treble IRONY score for talking about vagueness while making hay over a label like "reactionary," which means asymptotic zero.

Why thank you Pico, you're very kind.

I'm grateful indeed that you've so perceptively observed that I "appear[] to know very little about the law" and that I may qualify for "Bonus Eedjit Points."

If in fact I do qualify for "Bonus Eedjit Points," might I ask where and for what I might be able to redeem them?

No matter. Just keep up your great work! It's valuable!

i agree with the write-up. More power!

hannah from échasse urbaine 

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Sunday March 4, 2012 08:39 PM.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31