The Tenther Grapevine
Updated May 29 with additional information provided in an interview with one of the men arrested.
WASHINGTON (May 28, 2011) – Police arrested five people at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. Saturday.
Their crime?
Silent dancing.
Eddie Dickey, 37, was among those arrested. He said police charged him with “dancing in a restricted area” and held him in jail for about 2.5 hours.
A group of about a dozen people showed up at the memorial to protest a recent court ruling upholding the 2008 arrest of Mary Oberwetter.
Oberwetter was part of a group of 18 people who went to the Jefferson Memorial in April of that year to celebrate the third president’s birthday. Just before midnight, the flash mob began dancing silently to honor “the individualist spirit for which Jefferson is known.” U.S. Park Police warned the group to stop and ultimately arrested Oberwetter, charging her with demonstrating without a permit and interfering with an agency function.
Those charges were later dropped.
But Oberwetter challenged the arrest in court, arguing that it violated her First Amendment right to free expression. In January 2010, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates threw out the lawsuit.
“The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history,” Bates wrote. “The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain ‘an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence.’”
Courts consider memorials and monuments “nonpublic forums”, meaning they are not traditionally open for public debate, or dedicate to policy or public discourse. The judge’s ruling follows Supreme Court precedent establishing that the government “has the power to preserve the property for the purpose to which it is lawfully dedicated.” As long as restrictions on expression don’t favor or disfavor any particular group, they are generally allowed.
A federal appeals court upheld the lower court in a ruling released on May 17.
But some disagree with the courts, arguing that restrictions at the memorials clearly violate the constitutional right to free expression Jefferson embodied, and a small group set out Saturday afternoon to dance under his statue’s shadow in protest.
Several cameras captured the incident on video. After warning a group that they would face arrest and would likely spend the entire weekend in jail if they danced inside the memorial, police cuffed a man and a woman who were embraced, swaying near the statue.
“The silent waltzing started while the cops were telling the rest of us not to dance,” Berin Szoka said.
The two initially arrested we not in the group warned.
Moments later, three officers roughly took Dickey and another man to the ground, as police were trying to cuff Dickey and the second dancer attempted to link arms with him. A few yards away, a Park Police officer lifted a fifth man off the ground and body slammed him to the concrete when he refused to comply with demands to drop to his knees.
Witnesses identified the man body slammed as Adam Kokesh, an Iraqi War veteran and a former congressional candidate from New Mexico. Kokesh has a history of protesting, particularly U.S. involvement in Iraq.
As police dealt with Kokesh, Dickey stood back up and began dancing again, hands cuffed behind his back, until an officer grabbed him and forced him to sit cross legged on the floor.
Dickey said he thinks the police response was calculated to send a message, noting that the offense only warrants a ticket.
“It’s a cite and release,” he said. “It was special treatment for us. It was really surreal.”
But Dickey added the use of force didn’t really surprise him. In fact, he admits he expected it.
“Because I know how the state is. It’s about intimidation, coercion and the threat of force.”
As police subdued the dancers, the first man cuffed sat on a bench, yelling, “This is America.” Eventually an officer told him to shut up.
“I am not shutting up. You cannot shut me up. That’s not the way this works.”
At that point, police shut down the Jefferson Memorial and began moving people outside. A video shot by Szoka captures an officer putting his hands on a television cameraman and ushering him out of the memorial, emphasizing his request to leave the area with a slight shove to the back. Witnesses say the cameraman worked for Washington D.C. NBC affiliate channel 4.
After roughly shoving another bystander with a camera outside, the same officer then approaches Szoka.
“You’re not allowed to video record in here,” the officer says, apparently grabbing at the camera. For several seconds, the footage shows only feet, as Szoka appears to move away. When he raises the camera again from just outside the monument’s interior chamber, the officer issues another warning.
“If you continue to record, you will be arrested.”
Another video shows a police officer telling a man outside the inner chamber he is not allowed to film. When the man indicates he is with the press, the officer says, “It doesn’t matter.”
“They were just trying to cover their brutality,” Dickey said.
Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said he found the treatment of those filming the incident particularly troubling.
“The police have no authority to stop people from filming in an area open to the general public. Granted, they can clear a crime scene and keep people from interfering. But to threaten somebody with arrest for video recording after they comply with a request to move back – cops have no authority to do that. Courts have consistently held that citizens and journalists alike have the right to record activities in public areas, particularly gathering information on public officers acting in official capacities,” Maharrey said. “The fact that the police were clearly trying to shut down coverage indicates to me they knew they had crossed the line in terms of force, and they didn’t want anybody to see it. But I guess you shouldn’t be surprised that officers arresting people engaging in a First Amendment protest would interfere with news gathering.”
The appeals court ruling held that dancing falls into the same category as others activities forbidden at memorials, such as picketing, speech making, and holding vigils or religious services, reasoning that such acts tend to create their own centers of attention and distract from the atmosphere of solemnity.
Szoka said it was the police who disturbed the sanctity of the memorial.
“The dancers were just rocking out to whatever was on their iPod headphones. So the whole thing was quite silent until the police started arresting people,” he said.
Dickey agreed, saying that if the police would have just let the group do its silent dance for 10 minutes, they would have gotten tired of it and left.
“They were the ones who created the disturbance.”
And he admitted the whole incident was ridiculous.
“And that’s the point of it. The whole thing is silly. The judge’s 26 page ruling was silly. Us going out there dancing – making fools of ourselves – was silly. And the police reaction was silly,” he said. “The whole thing was just insane.”
The arrests didn’t appear to deter the protesters. A Facebook event page indicates a second dance at the memorial is planned for June 4.
“In response to the ridiculous arrest of five peaceful demonstrators, a second day of Silent Dancing will commence next week on Saturday, June 4, at noon,” a post on the page says
“We need to stand firm and let the state know that we will not be intimidated. This is a peaceful, silent protest and is protected under our right to free speech.”
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Actually, the king of Denmark issued a decree when they started kidnapping the Danish Jews that all people, INCLUDING THE KING, wear a Jewish star on their clothing. In essence they had the balls. I'm wearing my Marine officer shirt to the Saturday dance to support these guys. If my platoon were there, all cops would have been subdued for infringing on constitutional right and our oath of office. Stand tall, America!
A little rebellion every now and then is a good thing. – Abraham Lincoln
Those of you who think the government should be able to define behavior at government, aka the people's, property are dead wrong. Swaying back and forth. Who is to say I don't sway back and forth normally. Fu people, and F those cops. They're part of the problem and one day soon karma is coming for them and every other bureaucratic, statist pig who initiates force against citizens.
They actually seek redress in the constitition since it is a higher authority than the actual law and so far the constitution gives the federal government the power to write rules regarding its own property without exceptions that I am aware of.
I never said that every rule they pass is just and fair or that I would automatically agree with it. I just said that authority over public (aka government property). How they use that authority is debatable but they do have it which is what I was trying to say the entire time.
I tend to disagree with that proposition as a general maxim. In using the term, "property," you must be thinking "real estate." "Property" is a term that includes personal property and intangibles. It is a very broad concept. I know you can think of examples, even with real estate, that would make the rule unjust, so I will not bother to do that exercise for you.
By definition, an oppressed minority cannot seek redress at the polls, so the idea that "the people wouldn't let government get away with it" is wrong. The people would let the government get away with it, simply because, by your rule, a majority gets what it wants.
Are you saying that top secret CIA meetings should be open to the public? What you are talking about is when the government writes laws over private property. This entire conversation is about what is to be done with public property.
I think the majority of the people ought to be able to decide what to do with public property since it belongs to the public. The government can write whatever laws they want and decide what to do with that property. Yours and mine property is a little different and is hands off.
Yes, I want them to do that. What you are professing is a majoritarian philosophy. "Though shalt not do or say X because it offends most of us."
I doubt allowing protests such as these would really bring the world crashing down. It might make an outing for some folks here and there uncomfortable, but that's the price we pay to live in a free society.
In a manner of speaking, yes. However, these clubs do many more onerous things, such as allow inside members to loot the treasury and write laws and regulations to funnel money from "little" citizens on up the chain.
If you want to worry about something the Supreme Court ruled search warrents are no longer necessary.
The irony is here is that the constitution gives the federal government the power to write regulations over public property but the courts only have power over the LAWS of the united states. I contend that regulations are different than laws. Where are they going to prosecute these people?
I didn't agree with that either.
Uh, the same power you USE TO HAVE over your home! http://blog.southernbread.org/stories/2011/05/19/…
The Government is supposed to be US. But they have forgotten that. They have an Us vs Them mindset. We are the Government and you are the Governed. That is Tyrannical thinking.
It's one thing to act within the scope of the law. It's quite another when they use un-necessary physical force on the people "dancing".
Physical force is understandable if other lives and safety are at risk because of the behavior. But that is not the case here. The park police lost their cool and didn't like their authority undermined so they decided to make examples out of these people. They got wayy too rough.
Like its been pointed out by someone else, this is a ticketable offense.
It does not require this level of physical force.
Way over the top by the police. Way way over the top. And that one nazi thug cop was completely wrong about being able to video there. He absolutely can! There is no restrictions on filming or taking pictures.
He was just afraid that he would be caught on record violating all those peoples rights.
If that S.O.B doesn't lose his job then sue the damn park police for personal injury and unlawful violation of your civil liberties.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man!" -TJ
WLYB………….On with the dance! let joy be unconfined;
No sleep till morn, when Youth and Pleasure meet
To chase the glowing hours with flying feet.
~George Gordon, Lord Byron, Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
Hi Diana,
Look up my profile on Facebook (Richard D. Ward, Franklin Indiana). We have a group I think you would enjoy.
My name (by coincidence) is Richard Ward
Do you really want them to change the law to allow any protest within the area? How will people be able to enjoy the monument with protestors doing their thing? The rule that governs the use of public property doesn't interfere with any use of any one person's private property so it really doesn't interfere with the natural rights of the people since the people and the government are divided between their perspective property that they own. The people are still allowed to use their individual property as they see fit so the private sphere is not involved in this issue.
I definitely understand the symbolism of not allowing political protest at the Jefferson memorial but most of that is out of a practical need to establish some kind of order so the monument can be enjoyed.
Well, thank God none were like deputy Matt Paul of the Sheriff's office in Seattle, Wash. Someone might have gotten permanently injured or killed.
Absolutely correct, William Windsor has firsthand experience of the thorough corruption in the Federal Judiciary. The Boston Tea Party WAS a revolutionary act against abusive government policies. The corruption in all levels of governments local, state, and federal is at a critical mass. They MUST shut the opposition down or things might get completely out of control. What WILL follow this or next year is an open putsch by the government dressed up as something like an invasion or insurrection. If not that, then a real revolution may follow; at which point, I'd tell every government official to pack his bags and get out(and never come back). The comfortable ride the American people have had is about to end…
This are Park Police, What else can you say. They are the Kind of guys that regular Police Departments will not hire, so they end up here.
I like their helmets – they're cute.
Yes you do! If I was there with my kids, we would all be dancing and I would WANT my kids to see what the police state has become!
Don't let those children grow up with the naive belief that the government or the police have the best interest of the people at heart. Please teach your kids about civil disobedience!
I wish so badly that I could be there next saturday!
I am rather tired of hearing the "If you don't like the law, change it." excuse! Public protest is one way to change the law, ever heard of The Boston Tea Party? And how else might we change the law now? Our "representatives" won't represent us once they're elected, lies are openly told and applauded in every venue of government, corrupt judges throw out valid cases filed in protest. Changing the law in this country at this point is similar to trying to convince a hit man that he doesn't want to kill you.
Here is the law:g) Demonstrations and special events–(1) Definitions. (i) The term “demonstrations'' includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers. –
If you break the law, which is what civil disobedience is all about, you will pay the consequences. If you don't like the law, change it. They should expect to be arrested next week too.
"Alas, when you believe (as I think you must) that government is a vehicle to set up private clubs at the expense of non-members, there is virtually no limit to what these clubs can do"
I believe government does this anyways with a lot of public property. I know this because most of us are not allowed to walk into the oval office, CIA board members, and other areas of government property. They have rules that exclude some people from using that property in favor of another which hapens to be certain government employees. Are those exclusive clubs?
So why not organize a group of about 500 people who would like to peacefully, and respectfully dance at Jefferson's Memorial? Would people who live in the area, and who believe in the first amendment be willing to do this?
Nope. That clause was overridden by the First Amendment, which takes precedence because amendments to laws override the originals (else what's the point of the amendments?). See also 18 USC 242, which those smurf goons violated.
I thought the same thing. He read it off the police report he has. I don't know that I care enough – or have the time to run it down…although it would be easy enough to get.
Can't say I've ever heard of "Dancing in a Restricted Area." You might want to press the guy to show you proof. These types of cases more often sound in disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, interfering with law enforcement, resisting an officer/arrest. That sort of stuff.
I just interviewed one of the guys arrested and will be updating this story.
He said the charge was "Dancing in a restricted area."
No joke.
He also said he thought the police reaction was calculated and meant to set an example. Normally something like this is a cite and release kind of thing.
You're right. My sentiments, too. The framers had an amorphous idea, and that was about it.
If not dancing, how about "high fiving?" How about shaking hands? How about kneeling in prayer, as opposed to just prayer without kneeling? How about the type of prayer Muslims do, like rolling out carpets and going barefoot? How about making faces? How about holding hands – as they do in vigils? How about all sorts of things? The founders had bigger fish to fry than to iron all all this stuff. They left it for us to do.
The odd part of the TJ Memorial deal, is if you can't have a nice, peaceful dance, then there is so much more in terms of ridiculous prohibitions they could make. Can't you just see the sign? "No dancing; No hand-holding; No kneeling; No bowing…." Why, of all things, dancing?
My guess is that the whole thing was a clash of egos between police and citizen. The police had guns and cuffs and the support of prosecutors and judges behind them. They let their egos get the better of them and should have left those folks alone until they really did something quite a lot less tolerable.
I think we have to make some distinctions. The First Amendment was never considered a carte blance right to say whatever, whenever. When the amendment was penned, there were already well established legal definitions of "speech". For instance, slander was considered punishable, as was blasphemy and lewdness.
The central contention of the judge in this case is that the government can limit speech within the context of a place's purpose. For instance, courts have ruled you cannot protest ON a military base. Opponents argue that a literal reading of the First Amendment makes no exception for places. I would counter that if we are going to go with literal meaning, the First Amendment also offers no protection for dancing. There is no indication that the framers considered all "expression" speech. That is a construct of our court system through the evolution of First Amendment law. So it becomes difficult to argue that the court can create a construction protecting "dance" as an expression and then turn around and say the court cannot create a construction limiting speech in certain places.
I'm not a lawyer, but as a journalist, I am relatively familiar with First Amendment law. It is one area that the courts have interpreted broadly, vastly limiting government power over speech and expression – I would argue beyond what the framers had in mind. I see that as a good thing.
All that to say, I don't necessarily find laws limiting "expression" at a memorial particularly insidious. That said, generally speaking, any limits very quickly lead down a slippery slope.
Absolutely. Communicate the message in a way people connect with.
And there lies the rub. "Only contributors to the campaigns of Republican representatives may enter the Library of Congress."
Alas, when you believe (as I think you must) that government is a vehicle to set up private clubs at the expense of non-members, there is virtually no limit to what these clubs can do – like to give low and no-interest loans to its members funded by non-members, to give its members first rights to newly-minted money before inflationary effects can be experienced by its trickling down, to write rules that require people to purchase the products of their buddies, to write tax laws which tax the typical incomes of their buddies (who make their bread from flipping stocks and bonds) at a mere 15%, while those who physically labor must pay upwards of 20% (plus contribute another 16% to social security and medicare), and on and on…. There is no real end to it.
The function of government, regardless of the form it takes, has always been to preserve the property of those who control government, and to allow those in control to further write discriminatory laws, posing them as "neutral," in order to grow their stashes and keep them from the plunder of the masses. This is not to say that the process is blatant and rapid. It is rather a system of controls that erodes everyone outside the inner-circle a little at a time. Of course, the inner-circle, due to an unfortunate thing known as mortality, must replenish itself from time to time, and thus, there are mechanism to do so, which in many ways represent "the American dream."
How else do you explain the rising wealth gap and public debt? It seems obvious to me…. Capitalism at the top and communism for everyone else. There is enough wealth in this nation to pay off the US debt easily. That we have this debt, while preserving the vastly concentrated wealth, means only one thing. Those at the top are receiving greater rewards from the government than everyone else.
The process of public debt allows exploitation of the masses. It means the inner-circle does not have to pay what it takes to maintain a stable nation and can simply pass the bill on down the line.
I know I am about to step into this but they have the power to write those rules and they have done so in the past but I doubt the voters would allow the government to write such regulations today.
This is true. But can they write rules which say, "No Blacks may enter?" How about, "Whites may dance here, but not Blacks?" Or, how about, "No form of dancing, other than the Waltz, allowed?"
If there are restrictions on this rule-making power, where do they end, and how can you conclude from your analysis on those restrictions that this rule-making precludes someone doing a "jig" on the Capitol steps?
I hate to point this out but the government has a lot of power to inhibit free speech. Powers that were given to them by the federal government such as military regulations for its officers and enlisted men. They can't release secret information or speak badly about the president. Congress can write those rule for them because they have that power delegated to them from the constitution. It may suck but they have that power but they have no power to tell us, private citizens, that we can't tell the president to suck it when we want.
The same applies to government property. I can't spray paint any political messages on the post office and have to get their permission to use the post office property for any activity I want to do on it. Those rules that determine what I can do on government property is written by the congress just like the rules you and I write over my own property is written by us. Of course, the government is the tool that is used by the public to establish those rules but it is the government that has the right to write those rules in the end.
No private citizen can walk onto it and say it is public property therefore I can write rules over it since I am a member of the public. They have to petition government to enact those rules that they want which would demand the input of every other citizen in this country. There is no private power over public property.
Maybe. I am not claiming an ability to be able to look at any source to categorically say you are incorrect. All I can do is raise important questions concerning the point you are making. One important question is that if your contention is correct, what precludes government from enacting a rule that says, "No Blacks may enter upon our Property?"
OK. I think I ceded that point that the original clause I cited only applied to territorie or the governing power over them. You are right that it does not give them the power to regulate the lives of the people who happen to live on them. It seems to deal with legislative power over them but the second clause I pointed out clearly gives congress to power to write whatever rules regarding its property as it wants such as "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States". Its the same power you have over your own home. A person may have a natural right to speak freely but you have a power over your own home which means that you can deny access to that person over your own property. You simply ask them to leave because it is your own home. This is what, in my opinion, should have happened to the protestors. Just ask them to leave and protest somewhere else.
Ha! I kind of thought I gave a bit of a non-answer. As a media person, your thinking is spot-on. The whole of life is marketing. These dancers are looking for a good marketing gimmick that will sell. If it doesn't, they'll likely try something else. We're all looking for that gimmick, right?
But let's not forget the principal/agency relationship. The agent is only permitted to act within the confines of the powers delegated to it. Its rule-making authority, for example, does not allow it to have a rule which says, "Only Whites allowed in this building." There are limits, and so we are back to whether the First Amendment was intended to be one of those limits. (I also commented on the Article 4,Section 3 language in a reply above.)
Really, I think this is a straight-up First Amendment issue, and an analysis falls on whether the conduct is speech-oriented in nature, and whether a general prohibition at that location is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction.
I think that's a good analysis.
As a "media" person, I tend to think a lot in terms of perception. Quite honestly, sometimes a little too much. I'm always considering how something will spin, how the media will report it and how it will impact overall public opinion. Ultimately, this is all a battle for minds. I think Jeff pointed this out well in a post on the TAC site earlier this week.
But when it comes down it, each person is answerable to her or his own conscience. I'm not sure that "dancing" at a memorial is something that rises to a level for me that would ever motivate me to go actively protest. But for those folks yesterday, it did rise to that level, and I have to respect their willingness not to sit down and give in.
Watch for a post in the next few days on the Civil Rights era.
Interesting cite. I don't read it like that, though. The text surrounding seems to make clear that, at that time, there were still a lot of lands that were not part of any states. They were territories. That section seems to make clear that the Congress had sole jurisdiction over all legislation to be enacted in those non-state territories. It did not mean Congress' legislative authority extended in abrogation of the protections to be afforded all US Citizens. The Bill of Rights came after that, and if anything, served as an exclamation point as to limits of Congress' authority.
Since the US held territories, the US government had to handle all the local functions of governing as well. This is what I think that language means.
Rules reguarding property should not interfer with the bill of rights.
I really believe that may be well meaning but under the classical liberal thinking society and government were distinct and separate objects. The government writes rules over public property because, for all legal purposeses, it owns it. We the people, use the government to establish those rules through whatever process is in place such as constitution or the democratic body. The point is is that the government has the lawful right to establish any rules over its property just like you, I, and every other member of society have the same right to establish rules over our own property. This makes them two distinct objects of control in which public property is controlled by the public as a whole through the use of the institution known as government and private property is controlled by the private individuals within it. Two distinct separate spheres of control exist between public and private property.
Depends upon what you think of those rabble-rousers in California who continue to openly smoke pot in derogation of the supreme beings in Washington. I suppose they are provoking arrest, too.
The way I see it is our nation is full of nutty people with nutty causes, but it also has a lot of good people with good causes. In America, you have the right to be a nut and have a nutty cause. It's what protects good people with good causes. It is this sort of rabble-rousing that might ultimately work to provoke beneficial change. Many times, it does not work. But many times, it does. The Civil Rights Era had people of a certain race making all kinds of outrageous claims concerning where they could eat and who they could marry. These are no longer considered outrageous, thanks to their rabble-rousing.
If you don't like the particular cause or display, it doesn't mean you have to. It should mean, however, that it is supposed to be publicly tolerated.
OK. I think that clause I pointed to is for territory of the United States so it may not apply. However this clause in says "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States". I believe this gives the congress to establish rules over that property.
What I meant to say in my now deleted comment (cuz it made no sense) is that freedom of speech is one area that the courts have interpreted in a way that limits the government more than the framers likely intended.
Here's an interesting question – kind of jumping off Jeff's point. Is this type of civil disobedience – provoking arrest – a good thing or bad things from a pragmatic standpoint? Certainly, it focuses attention on an issue. But on the other hand, it reinforces an idea in the minds of many only slightly engaged Americans that the "liberty" people are a bunch of rabble rousers and get what they deserve. So does this kind of action advance or hurt the cause of liberty?
The way I see this is that there is no doubt the dancers were going there just to tick off the cops. That part is obvious. And so, many people will look at the situation and think that they were properly handled because they ought to know you don't go around provoking arrest.
However, there is more to it than that. The police are supposed to know that they are not permitted to be so provoked by lawful activity. Throughout history, police have been told they need to tolerate far more provoking activity than just a quiet dance. Flag burning, anyone? That's required to be tolerated.
You guys might want to read that provision again. It starts with "To exercise exclusive Legislation…" and ends with "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Even if the monument fits the description, the authority is to make legislation.
I don't know what legislation exists, but whatever it is, it can't violate free speech.
there is no such thing as government property. this is public property. that is the problem. we the people are the government. it is our property.
I'm actually inclined to agree, although I have a problem with the way the police handled the situation and there are some free press issues with the way people filming the incident were handled.
Actually, free speech is probably one area that the courts have interpreted the Constitution more broadly than the original intent .
I'm probably the lone dissenter here but I actually think that the government has the power to regulate government property. I believe that is in the constitution. The public has the right through its institutions, the government, to pass regulations over how public property is to be used. Now if this was on private property or even public property where this was allowed then it would be a different matter completely.
"and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"
I hate to be a party pooper but I believe the government is acting within the scope of the law on this.
Deja vu it's almost as if I'm watching a tape from Hitlers thugs…….Don't they say time is cyclical.
Speechless, I am supposed to be there with my kids next Saturday, Scary I would not want them exposed to this behavior
Nazi… dude you need to watch "Schindler's List" again. If those police were real Nazis, they would have just pulled out a gun and shot the "dancers" in the head. Now that that has been said, the police had no right to arrest those people or even tell them not to dance unless their actions were interfering with other tourists right to enjoy the Jefferson Memorial.
Then it would have simply called a riot & more cops would show up… too many sheeple are willing to allow the coming Corporate Theocratic Police state..
Well we all know how dangerous dancing is. Just ask the cops in "Footloose". LOL The guy who kept saying "This is America" was wrong. This WAS America, it's not anymore.
Nice find. Sharing. Thanks Jeff
Remember remember the 5th of November.
The total irony of this is where this happened: at Thomas Jefferson's memorial. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written to stop just these tactics by these Nazi police. Just who in the hell do they think they are anyway?
I was particularly troubled by the fact that so many who were there just moved along like sheep. Think of how it might have turned out if they'd ALL joined with the one lone guy shouting that this is not the way it works in this country. What if they'd formed a human barrier around the Nazi thug's targets? SOMEHOW, people have got to start really standing up or there will be NO more stand up possible. This is appalling.
Just found what looks to be a great source of First Amendment cases covering the right to protest:
http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/protes…
Check this case out, for example: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_86
The times have definitely changed.
Who do those park police think they are, airline stewardesses?