General Discussion

Uncle Joe

(65,037 posts)

18. They added this part, "special event of national significance"

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 06:33 PM

Mar 2012

perhaps you can tell me, what is the legal definition of that terminology?

I have asked this question several times but haven't received an answer yet.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I oppose the changes to law HR 347 brings. I am a member of DU in good standing, [View all] mmonk Mar 2012 OP

Have you read any of the previous threads? randome Mar 2012 #1

May seem so but not trivial in a court of law. mmonk Mar 2012 #3

Thank you for saying that. Some do not seem to see it. n/t Cleita Mar 2012 #5

Thanks. It's a subtle change but could lend itself to how it is enforced. mmonk Mar 2012 #14

That's how taking away people's rights are done, Cleita Mar 2012 #15

+ 1 nt rbnyc Mar 2012 #57

Fine. Take it to court! randome Mar 2012 #6

Simply giving my objections to the changes. mmonk Mar 2012 #12

They added this part, "special event of national significance" Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #18

That was ProSense Mar 2012 #20

Yep. Pretty wide open for interpretation. mmonk Mar 2012 #21

Nothing to see here. Move along. GeorgeGist Mar 2012 #74

Good for you, but the freakout is still total bullshit. TheWraith Mar 2012 #2

Could you explain what a Ron Paul type is to you? Cleita Mar 2012 #16

A couple of points about the "knowingly" change onenote Mar 2012 #4

The "willfully" standard is more restrictive. mmonk Mar 2012 #9

I don't dispute the difference between willfully and knowingly onenote Mar 2012 #22

I don't think additional laws are needed to protect the President or Vice President other Cleita Mar 2012 #7

Do you really think you're going to be successful... randome Mar 2012 #8

Hyperbole much? Cleita Mar 2012 #10

Yeah, I know. randome Mar 2012 #11

I never said that government can't be trusted. Cleita Mar 2012 #13

Me? Scared? randome Mar 2012 #26

Oh, you are reaching. You are not even trying to Cleita Mar 2012 #29

Way to respond to my simple question. randome Mar 2012 #31

In this case none of them. The law sucks and there Cleita Mar 2012 #36

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #37

No I'm not. To be that I would have to work for him, give him money and Cleita Mar 2012 #40

Do you think that people should form their opinions only based on sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #60

you're being a real jerk in this thread. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2012 #62

exactly. n/t RainDog Mar 2012 #64

a hearty +1 Union Scribe Mar 2012 #70

chill the fuck out RainDog Mar 2012 #17

Not when the goal is to spread fear and confusion. randome Mar 2012 #24

I know this person RainDog Mar 2012 #38

It's been explained a dozen times already. randome Mar 2012 #41

Tell me where you read that in the OP RainDog Mar 2012 #63

Counterpoint: the Salahi's. onenote Mar 2012 #23

That was a breach by the security team. This law would not prevent another Cleita Mar 2012 #27

By that standard we should do away with all laws that protect the president. onenote Mar 2012 #30

No, but we need laws that also protect our rights as citizens. Cleita Mar 2012 #34

You're wrong... SidDithers Mar 2012 #19

One would assume without lawful authority if arrests are made. mmonk Mar 2012 #25

You're taking a tour of the WH. You wander off into a restricted area of the WH. You get arrested onenote Mar 2012 #32

Or you want to protest Presidential candidates. mmonk Mar 2012 #33

You think you have a defense, but the law says differently. Cleita Mar 2012 #35

Just know that the outrage was ginned up because Ron Paul sufrommich Mar 2012 #28

I'm not really concerned about all that. mmonk Mar 2012 #58

But... but... before this law it was totally legal to trespass in the White House! Nye Bevan Mar 2012 #39

That's why it's such an inconsequential update to the 1971 law. randome Mar 2012 #43

Let's see what happens a republican admin xchrom Mar 2012 #42

What I consider the worst aspect of this bill MadHound Mar 2012 #44

The law has been in effect since 1971. randome Mar 2012 #45

What is it about the drastic expansion of this law do you fail to comprehend? MadHound Mar 2012 #48

Any law can be misused. randome Mar 2012 #49

Actually that isn't how the bill reads, MadHound Mar 2012 #52

"knowingly...without lawful authority" randome Mar 2012 #54

where do you get that idea? onenote Mar 2012 #68

Centrists in this thread had better go on record defending them. xchrom Mar 2012 #46

It's objectivity, not centrism. randome Mar 2012 #47

Great! Let's hear your defense of nixon's interference xchrom Mar 2012 #61

You know, this argument has been bothering me. Robb Mar 2012 #50

Good point. randome Mar 2012 #51

Because they can now strike while the iron is hot, MadHound Mar 2012 #53

No, I get the theory. Robb Mar 2012 #55

Good point. You are not going to get any calm rational answers. emulatorloo Mar 2012 #56

I don't see any need to make it any easier for them, especially with the people mmonk Mar 2012 #59

because bipartisan authorship provides the veneer of acceptability RainDog Mar 2012 #65

Yes. We all know how they interpret "anything" to suit their selves. glinda Mar 2012 #72

Fuck Ron Paul unionworks Mar 2012 #66

Because it can conflict with the 1st amendment, mmonk Mar 2012 #71

Thank you for saying that. limpyhobbler Mar 2012 #67

You're welcome. Thanks to all who responded. mmonk Mar 2012 #69

Thank you for posting. glinda Mar 2012 #73