A Great Place For News, But Not Your Blood Pressure.


Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Stop Defending Anarchy By Wrapping It In The Constitution

How exactly does the Right to Peacefully Assemble and the Right to petition your Government for redress of your grievances trump property rights?

Here are some quotes which get at the heart of the Constitution:

John Adams
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST"

James Madison
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

(By the way Property also includes Income.)

Everyone has the right to peacefully assemble as long as it does not infringe upon the property rights or Constitutional Rights of others.

While we can legally stand on a sidewalk or reserve a public forum to protest in we do not have the right to plant our behind on any piece of property we wish in order to protest.

At the point a protest Trespasses on Property it does not own or have permission to "Occupy" it ceases to be legal and can be dealt with as legally allowed under the law.

If people are allowed to Protest anywhere they wish, whenever they wish regardless of property rights, then this country will fall into anarchy and cease being a Constitutional Republic. We must not destroy one Right in order to uphold another.

So while the UC Davis College Students had a right to "Peacefully" assemble under the Constitution, they did not have the Right to Trespass on School property.

Those of us that support our Constitutional Republic should not endorse Anarchy by wrapping it in the Constitution, instead we must uphold the Constitution as the Law of the Land by which ALL are subject...that includes UC Davis Occupy Protesters.


Anonymous said...

I do not entirely agree because the dean has control over the property and can say yes or no. In this case she is faced with a decision, back the students or back the cops. If she backs the cops she will probably lose her job and if she backs the students she will just lose two cops. Also, what would you say about the large amounts of money the school collects from the students in tuition and residency costs. I am no expert but it seems like living on campus makes it commonplace property for the students, faculty, and staff. I am not berating you, I am just curious what your response is to my thoughts on this issue. However, I do agree that property is an important possession in need of protection and there are certainly laws in place to protect exactly that as you stated. Therefore I conclude that I do agree with you on certain levels just not in entirety. I comment respectfully on your page and thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with another passionate individual.

Anonymous said...

I must say I agree with anonymous here. The problem isn't with the protesters occupying in my mind. It is the amount of public property that exists. How can a bureaucrat decide when "public" property is available. I completely agree with you if this were a private college. Even if the student fees and tuition go tot he college, if it does not take government money then it should have every right to defend it's property. But at a state school where money is taken by force from everyone's pocket to support the school, the property becomes public. Stop the spread of public property rather than focus on these misguided kids that are acting within their first amendment rights. If you say that they cannot stand up and protest against a government on government/public owned property, then where can they? In some aspects they have done things better than the Tea Parties. Honestly, the Tea PArties should not have had to beg the government(in form of site rental) to protest the government's actions. The first amendment doesn't say you can peaceably assemble as long as you pay a fee, or as long as you do it within this set of hours. Do you think the founding fathers that tea partiers love would have agreed with this? No way! The founding fathers broke plenty of bad laws to find this country in the first place.

I pretty much completely disagree with the goal of the OWS movement, as they should be focusing on government as the enemy and crony capitalism, not capitalism in it's purest sense. But the tea party is all about smaller government unless they disagree with the speakers message.

One thing I have had a hard time with Tea Partiers is that they believe the government does nothing right, they can't operate a budget, they can't operate the post office, they can't operate trains, they can't operate a healthcare system. All of these are true and I agree with that, but with the government not being able to do these things, why are tea parties so set in that they think the government can decide and operate war, they can decide what laws should exist, they can effectively operate a police force without it turning into a protectionist racket. Tea parties believe these are all the things government does right, but to me these seam like much harder things to accomplish than running a railroad, so I do not understand why tea parties think that the government is good at this, but bad at activities that are mundane in comparison