US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

[Siatdiat]

I think your "moon base" idea should be having a moon base.

Hi! What would be the purpose of a moon base? Just one good reason.

[Pirian]

It's not every day, but congress does occasionally step outside its authority to make laws, but isn't this exactly why we have the Judicial branch to rule on the constitutionality of the law? Just because it passed doesn't mean that it won't get defeated the first time it is fought in a court room

[Siatdiat]

Obama will totally veto it dude. Of course I'm operating solely on faith here.

[Pirian]

First something has to happen for its Constitutionality to be challenged, and then that challenge has to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Uhh

It's not every day, but congress does occasionally step outside its authority to make laws, but isn't this exactly why we have the Judicial branch to rule on the constitutionality of the law? Just because it passed doesn't mean that it won't get defeated the first time it is fought in a court room

Thanks for the reiteration?

[Cantih]

I have a list.

Sounds acceptable, not 100% of what I'm looking for, but well past the OK point.
I'll keep an eye out for your consistency, or if any changes made are well reasoned, and see you in 2020.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Hi! What would be the purpose of a moon base? Just one good reason.

Who needs a reason? It's a goddamn moon base.

[tyven]

have you decided who you are going to get into bed with? at some point you need to pick who you perceive to be the lesser of all the evils so you can accept their moneys and avoid getting destroyed by big oil. unfortunately by the time your hat is in the ring most everyone will have caught up on social media, many strides have been made since 08 (Justin Amash comes to mind), so I wouldn't bank on that setting your campaign apart.

Are you working on any campaigns right now? I suggest finding a legislator (local, state, or federal, doesnt matter) that you truly respect and give as much time as you can. it will be a fucking drudgery, cold calling, envelope stuffing, sign posting, but its an opportunity to make an impression with the legislator and network with like-minded individuals. at the end of the day getting into politics is just like getting a job, its all about who you know.

[Pirian]

Not reiteration - the first time it's brought into a court room =/= the Supreme Court. Just from a time standpoint the difference can be measured in years.

But in the grand scheme it doesn't matter. If it is really used to stop protests then there will be loads of appeals and the decision will come that much quicker. This is even more-so the case if it is used repeatedly to stop protests and the law gains more wide public attention.

[Talint]

Considering the sheer overwhelming support this has in both parts of congress, even if Obama does veto it, there is more than enough to override the veto.

[Gwynplaine]

Are you seriously trying to act indignant about a perceived trampling of rights while linking in OP to the World Socialist Web Site?

[Cantih]

Well, if it's simply a matter of source, would techdirt appease your sensibilities?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...protests.shtml

Don't you just love Congress, where almost no bills actually are what they say on the tin? There's some buzz building online about the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" (or HR 347), which has been positioned as a simple updating of trespassing laws concerning federal grounds. However, as some are pointing out, hidden in there is quite the Easter egg that effectively outlaws protests near people who are "authorized" to be protected by the Secret Service (mainly the President and Vice President, but it could include a lot more as well). Only three Representatives voted against it, including Rep. Justin Amash who explained his concerns via Facebook:

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.

Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity -- even if that activity is annoying to those government officials -- violates our rights. I voted "no." It passed 388-3.

The specifics of the law pretty clearly seem to make it a crime to do a standard form of protest, such as anything that "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" or just if someone "engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds...." As Amash notes, there can be times when it makes sense to protect certain individuals, but "disorderly or disruptive" conduct is a pretty broad brush... and it's one very frequently abused by law enforcement officials.

You know all those stories we've had about people being arrested for filming police? Quite often those people are charged with disorderly conduct -- which often seems to boil down to "that person did something law enforcement doesn't like." To then take that and say that anything that constitutes disorderly conduct on the grounds of a building where someone who is protected by the Secret Service is a crime, it appears to be wide open to abuse, and a pretty clear restriction on the free speech rights of anyone wishing to engage in normal and healthy protest of our political process.

On top of that, the punishment can be pretty severe. You can get up to a year in jail for being found guilty of these things, and that jumps up to 10 years if you are carrying a "deadly or dangerous weapon."

As Amash notes, there are legitimate safety concerns to be aware of, and there are issues with doing something that significantly impedes government regulations. But it's really not difficult to see how this bill could very, very easily be stretched to be used against those doing standard protesting against significant political figures.

[Mazmaz]

Are you seriously trying to act indignant about a perceived trampling of rights while linking in OP to the World Socialist Web Site?

Yea I didn't post it without looking at other sources, I just decided to post the one that I read.

[Deadgye]

Hi! What would be the purpose of a moon base? Just one good reason.

Nuclear fusion power generators using the moons large amounts of Helium-3 to power space civilization and explorations. And then we make gundams.

[Cantih]

Uh oh, here comes a colony drop.

[Siatdiat]

Who needs a reason? It's a goddamn moon base.

I played moon base on atari when I was a young lad in the 80s, and was infatuated like all prepubescent boys with the space program. I even went to an aerospace magnet program in middle school! I realize there is some romanticism involved that creates an allure. However, even NASA doesnt feel there is a reason to make a moonbase, but suggests that after making one the reason will eventually present itself....

The moon is shitty for anyone who doesn't realize it. While under the sun, its hot as a fucking bitch, and when the sun is on the other side, its cold as a bitch, and always cold as a bitch in the craters. There is no hope of terraforming it. The expense of running a moon base is ridiculous, both in building it and in upkeep.

[Siatdiat]

Nuclear fusion power generators using the moons large amounts of Helium-3 to power space civilization and explorations. And then we make gundams.

Ironically, fusion is probably our best hope for sustainable energy that isn't based on fossil fuels. But people are scared of and hate anything nuclear!

[ronin sparthos]

The plans to explore Europa, putting people on Mars or even exploring Ceres sound more exciting than putting a base on the moon.

Well that or capturing asteroids and mining them for valuable minerals.

[Siatdiat]

The plans to explore Europa, putting people on Mars or even exploring Ceres sound more exciting than putting a base on the moon.

Well that or capturing asteroids and mining them for valuable minerals.

That and developing methods to prevent a large meteorite from wrecking our civilization.

With current technology, it is a one way trip to send people to Mars. In the future, I hope it will be better hopefully.

[ronin sparthos]

Well, Apophis did cause some concern a couple years ago but no catastrophic meteor impacts for us... yet.

Nothing like a giant meteor to get the human species suddenly interested in funding NASA though.

[Deadgye]

But people are scared of and hate anything nuclear!

Fusion using helium-3 literally doesn't produce any nuclear waste at all. The only problem is that the earth doesn't have a lot of helium-3, and to get it from the moon we'd need to use a lot of rocket fuel or build a lolspaceelevator.

I wonder if there would be a way to make a space colony powered by nuclear fusion reactors using helium-3 from the moon. The main problem I can think of is space radiation. And then there's the whole after colony one nine five thing that would happen in the future.