Have you ever driven by a shop that has red, white and blue flags, balloons, signs and banners scattered all over the place, all appealing to your patriotism and hoping you'll come in and buy something? Or do you think they're using the image of our country in a grossly perverted way, and avoid them like the plague?
I'm with you there! I hate the HUGE American flags over car dealerships (especially when they're selling foreign cars!). I wonder if there's any market research that it actually helps.
Americans are afforded the rule of law. Court decisions too numerous to mention confirms this fact. However, Washington D.C is a separate government, so says the Supreme Court.
In D.C this government has its own laws, applicable only in D.C, and insular possessions, it excludes the several states of the union. I think everyone that has been paying attention, is aware of the Department of Homeland Security. What most people don’t realize is this Agency is also confined to D.C and insular possessions. Here’s the proof.
District of Columbia Code
DIVISION I GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT
TITLE 7 HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY
SUBTITLE J PUBLIC SAFETY
§ 7-2202. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency authorized; Director and other personnel; compensation [Formerly § 6-1402].
(a) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, the Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized to establish in the municipal government of such District a Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency to consist of a Director and such other personnel as may be needed. Such Director shall be the executive head of such Agency……….
For those that might have missed it, there’s a bill in the Senate to amend section J of the D.C Code, S1959 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention sponsored by Joe Liberman. This of course would by law have no enforcement powers in the several states of the union .
The DHS was created by the Patriot “Act”, which is simply a treaty with Europe. The Supreme Court decision Downes v. Bidwell, stated that terms of a treaty are not enforceable in the several states of the union. This is the reason DHS is confined to D.C and insular possessions, referred to as states. These are the states Michael Chertoff is referring to in the Real I.D legislation. State officials of the several states cannot ratify the Real I.D “Act”.
New York v. United States, 505 U=2ES. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992), at pp. 2431-2432:
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials
The Secret Service was handed over to Homeland Security, and enforces the D.C code dealing with foreign diplomats in D.C. This particular code sections deals with banners and posters that might offend a foreign diplomat in D.C that’s it folks. There are no other laws.
Here’s the Supreme Court case, with link that explains it all. enjoy
U.S. Supreme Court
BOOS v. BARRY, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-A.
The question presented in this case is whether a provision of the District of Columbia Code, 22-1115, violates the First Amendment. This section prohibits the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to bring that foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute.” It also prohibits any congregation of three or more persons within 500 feet of a foreign embassy.
The most useful starting point for assessing 22-1115 is to compare it with an analogous statute adopted by Congress, which is the body primarily responsible for implementing our obligations under the Vienna Convention. Title 18 U.S.C. 112(b) (2) subjects to criminal punishment willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign [485 U.S. 312, 325] official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties.”
Its legislative history reveals that 112 was developed as a deliberate effort to implement our international obligations. See, e. g., 118 Cong. Rec. 27112-27113 (1972). At the same time, the history reflects a substantial concern with the effect of any such legislation on First Amendment freedoms. For example, the original provision contained a prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass . . . or obstruct a foreign official,” as does the current version of 112. In a portion with similarities to the display clause, however, it also punished anyone who
“parades, pickets, displays any flag, banner, sign, placard, or device, or utters any word, phrase, sound, or noise, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, threatening, or harassing any foreign official or obstructing him in the performance of his duties.” Act for Protection of Foreign Official Guests of the United States, Pub. L. 92-539, Title III, 301(c)(1), 86 Stat. 1070, 1073 (1972).
Concerned with the effects that such a provision might have on First Amendment freedoms, the Senate added a new subsection, which directed:
“[N]othing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 301(e), 86 Stat. 1073.
See S. Rep. No. 92-1105, p. 19 (1972).
After the 1972 passage of 112 in this form, congressional concerns about its impact on First Amendment freedoms apparently escalated rather than abated. In 1976, Congress revisited the area and repealed the antipicketing provision, leaving in place only the current prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign [485 U.S. 312, 326] official.” 112(b)(2). In modifying 112, Congress was motivated by First Amendment concerns:
“This language [of the original anti-picketing provision] raises serious Constitutional questions because it appears to include within its purview conduct and speech protected by the First Amendment.” S. Rep. No. 94-1273, p. 8, n. 9 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1614, p. 6, n. 9 (1976).
Americans are afforded the rule of law. Court decisions too numerous to mention confirms this fact. However, Washington D.C is a separate government, so says the Supreme Court.
In D.C this government has its own laws, applicable only in D.C, and insular possessions, it excludes the several states of the union. I think everyone that has been paying attention, is aware of the Department of Homeland Security. What most people don’t realize is this Agency is also confined to D.C and insular possessions. Here’s the proof.
District of Columbia Code
DIVISION I GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT
TITLE 7 HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY
SUBTITLE J PUBLIC SAFETY
§ 7-2202. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency authorized; Director and other personnel; compensation [Formerly § 6-1402].
(a) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, the Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized to establish in the municipal government of such District a Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency to consist of a Director and such other personnel as may be needed. Such Director shall be the executive head of such Agency……….
For those that might have missed it, there’s a bill in the Senate to amend section J of the D.C Code, S1959 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention sponsored by Joe Liberman. This of course would by law have no enforcement powers in the several states of the union .
The DHS was created by the Patriot “Act”, which is simply a treaty with Europe. The Supreme Court decision Downes v. Bidwell, stated that terms of a treaty are not enforceable in the several states of the union. This is the reason DHS is confined to D.C and insular possessions, referred to as states. These are the states Michael Chertoff is referring to in the Real I.D legislation. State officials of the several states cannot ratify the Real I.D “Act”.
New York v. United States, 505 U=2ES. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992), at pp. 2431-2432:
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials
The Secret Service was handed over to Homeland Security, and enforces the D.C code dealing with foreign diplomats in D.C. This particular code sections deals with banners and posters that might offend a foreign diplomat in D.C that’s it folks. There are no other laws.
Here’s the Supreme Court case, with link that explains it all. enjoy
U.S. Supreme Court
BOOS v. BARRY, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-A.
The question presented in this case is whether a provision of the District of Columbia Code, 22-1115, violates the First Amendment. This section prohibits the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if that sign tends to bring that foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute.” It also prohibits any congregation of three or more persons within 500 feet of a foreign embassy.
The most useful starting point for assessing 22-1115 is to compare it with an analogous statute adopted by Congress, which is the body primarily responsible for implementing our obligations under the Vienna Convention. Title 18 U.S.C. 112(b) (2) subjects to criminal punishment willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign [485 U.S. 312, 325] official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties.”
Its legislative history reveals that 112 was developed as a deliberate effort to implement our international obligations. See, e. g., 118 Cong. Rec. 27112-27113 (1972). At the same time, the history reflects a substantial concern with the effect of any such legislation on First Amendment freedoms. For example, the original provision contained a prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass . . . or obstruct a foreign official,” as does the current version of 112. In a portion with similarities to the display clause, however, it also punished anyone who
“parades, pickets, displays any flag, banner, sign, placard, or device, or utters any word, phrase, sound, or noise, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, threatening, or harassing any foreign official or obstructing him in the performance of his duties.” Act for Protection of Foreign Official Guests of the United States, Pub. L. 92-539, Title III, 301(c)(1), 86 Stat. 1070, 1073 (1972).
Concerned with the effects that such a provision might have on First Amendment freedoms, the Senate added a new subsection, which directed:
“[N]othing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 301(e), 86 Stat. 1073.
See S. Rep. No. 92-1105, p. 19 (1972).
After the 1972 passage of 112 in this form, congressional concerns about its impact on First Amendment freedoms apparently escalated rather than abated. In 1976, Congress revisited the area and repealed the antipicketing provision, leaving in place only the current prohibition on willful acts or attempts to “intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign [485 U.S. 312, 326] official.” 112(b)(2). In modifying 112, Congress was motivated by First Amendment concerns:
“This language [of the original anti-picketing provision] raises serious Constitutional questions because it appears to include within its purview conduct and speech protected by the First Amendment.” S. Rep. No. 94-1273, p. 8, n. 9 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1614, p. 6, n. 9 (1976).