Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Due to legal ramifications OWS must remain leaderless ?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 3, 2012, 12:35 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The constitution allows for peaceful assembly and listing grievances , but to appoint a leader and make demands is not constitutional. We live in a democracy we make decision by vote not demand. Do lobbyists make demands ?

Grievances are different from demands.

Does OWS have a list of grievances ?

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

I have a grievance......

I am against any individual who takes the constitution, screws around with it and tries to perpetrate that the peaceful assemblies of persons within the OW is unconstitutional!
Please site in the constitution where it states "to appoint a leader and make demands is not constitutional."?
That is poppycock...since there are many court rulings that go against what you just said and so does the constitution!!

Lobbyists don't have to make public demands, they always pay for their demands privately and get results and that is why OW exists!!!

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Question - who would any demands or grievances be made to?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You are mistaken. As an organization you have collective bargaining rights and the rights to picket and strike.

As a mob, you have to get the government's permission to exercise your Constitutional Rights to free speech and assembly.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/street-speech-your-rights-washington-parade-picket-and-leaflet

This page details both legal AND illegal ways to exercise your Constitutional Rights to free speech and assembly.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The ACLU helped create this problem arguing for Corporate Rights. I was being facetious. We all have freedom to peaceably assemble and exercise our free speech regardless of a city ordinance.

Any law, regulation, ordinance, etc... to be found in violation of the Constitution is null.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

The Supreme Court has established that specific laws, regulations and ordinances ARE completely Constitutional, when they are legally established in order that the right to free speech and assembly does NOT abridge any OTHER legal/lawful rights.

As soon as the right to free speech and assembly does that, it becomes an ABUSE of that right. The Constitution gives you the right to PETITION the GOVERNMENT for redress of anything you believe is unlawful or in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT give you the right to attack or destroy or become violent INSTEAD of PETITIONING the Government.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

A great many city ordinances are never challenged in any Court. I did say "Any law, regulation, ordinance, etc... to be found in violation of the Constitution is null"

Because it is voided does not mean it is removed, that takes another challenge. So there are a lot of laws on the books that were ruled unconstitutional or are clearly unconstitutional like laws prohibiting marriage between whites and blacks and other Jim Crow laws.

These laws should be removed, repealed and removed.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

And my point is that the Supreme Court found that:

"Government officials may not impose restrictions on protests or parades or other lawful assemblies in order to censor a particular viewpoint or because they dislike the content of the message. However, they may impose some limitations on assembly rights by enacting reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions designed to further legitimate regulatory objectives, such as preventing traffic congestion or prohibiting interference with nearby activities."

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

Which pretty much gives them a blank check to do what they want about protesters.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

Uh yeah, it does.

Regulatory objectives, congestion, interference, are very broad, and open to interpretation.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The unions use picket lines, collective bargaining and so can we. Eventually the Unions will have to support and back this or lose their ability to strike, picket and use collective bargaining.

The Constitution is the Constitution and it is time to fix it because it is broken.

http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-28-status-of-created-entities

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

It's my belief, that they will need a bigger bag of lawyers to make this fly.

It does sound nice, though the wingers have shit hairy conniptions over any unions.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

No, the laws are already established with decades of precedence and case law that buttresses the standing of the individual to organize, strike, picket and use collective bargaining.

It has to be done right and done right it will exclude the idiotshits that see the OWS as their way to throw their tantrums. What I suggest is that each individual adopt the position they are members of the OWS movement and belong to the local chapter, i.e. the Seattle Chapter, the Los Angles Chapter, the Oakland Chapter.

Picket lines should be orderly, not block traffic or the entrance and/or exit of any business. So what if the picket line is a half mile or a mile long or more. So what is it encircles the entire block housing the Courts. So what if the picket line stretches between two or more businesses even if they are blocks apart.

What this means is that you can picket ten, twenty or more Chase, Bank of America branches all day, everyday. Get the money out of banks and into the Credit unions.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

When protesters do not behave in a reasonable manner, society has the right to outline what they consider to be reasonable.

OWS thinks they have a black check. Society is saying they don't. Take it to court-petition to establish what is reasonable and what is not. I dare you.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

Hmmmmm, and WallStreet banks act in an unreasonable manner they get bonuses!!!!!!!

YAY fraud!!!!

Occupy WallStreet!!!

The bastards.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

OWS keeps insisting that corporations are not people. Yet you expect them to reason like people?

I don't think PEOPLE who behave in unreasonable ways should get ANYTHING. Not bankers. Not OWS. Equality!!!!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

How about when (R)epelican'ts behave in unreasonable ways?

They are still doing that, you know.

Teabaggers in particular.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Everyone who behaves in unreasonable ways. ALL of them. EQUALITY!!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

What about lying news outlets?

Those that knowingly lie, or change language according to an agenda?

Attempt to change history, even.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Absolutely. Every one of them. INCLUDING the Liberal outlets that knowingly lie, or change language according to their agenda. Attempting to re-write history even.

ALL OF THEM-EQUALLY. Don't you agree?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

YES!!!!

Turn off the TV news and vote the (R)epelican'ts out!!!!

Teabaggers first, the lying bastards.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 2 years ago

Both Grievances and demands require authority to address. OWS is not reaching for authority. The protests are voiceless when it comes to gaining authority. Article V of the constitution is the only way the people are going to have the needed authority and can be the ultimate form of democracy in America.

One person makes appointments, a group elects a leader. Having a leader consolidates concepts and purposes into a single accountable voice. A leader can call for a vote to determine the intentions of the people and do so within a logical relative framework. OWS has never gotten close to that.

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 2 years ago

I've seen Article V on OWS here and there. Certainly sounds interesting and solid. Where can I go to find out more about Article V? Is there any one group or person making any headway with Article V?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Article V is a cornerstone of ALEC
If that does not scare the daylights out of you -
you are a troll

If you think you know America’s biggest threat,
..Koch ?
….Norquist ?
……Boehner ?
……..McConnell ?

you are wrong –
……spend ten minutes with each of these


http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.alecwatch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection


BE AFRAID – VERY AFRAID

[-] 2 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

The (R)epelican'ts around here, like to pretend Alec doesn't exist.

Be VERY afraid.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 2 years ago

Totally solid! Article V is the law of the land, our first and last constitutional right, as was said on this forum a number of times as I read, what you must have seen, a number of times. Apparently the concept is not embraced or approved by OWS, because they censored posts that brought some profound strategy for America to compel an Article V convention; meaning they very likely have no intent of seeing either Grievances or demands met and are only using valid Grievances and demands to attract attention so populations might be mislead.

The pages I found here that were surrounding completely surrounding solid, lawful strategy for an Article V were these.

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

Hopefully Americans who know the Grievances and demands must be met, or we are history, can find this page then gather in one place, that does not censor vital facts for our survival and evolution in the future.

[-] 1 points by Renaye (522) 2 years ago

Haven't we been doing this for a while now? Seems to me that OWS is hell-bent on making sure we don't co-ordinate any effort or idea other than to protest. Its seems like the minute a good idea starts to form, or people start to collaborate, there is an onslaught of people berating the OPs and falling over themselves to give reasons why the idea wouldn't work.

Am I suspicious? You bet. I will keep trying to post exposes, knowing that at least the people checking in here for the first time may see something that strikes a chord that will make them start to independently research.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 2 years ago

"Haven't we been doing this for a while now? Seems to me that OWS is hell-bent on making sure we don't co-ordinate any effort or idea other than to protest."

Absolutely! There is nothing reasonable about action with no overall strategy to gain the needed authority to meet Grievances and demands.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Actually, the constitution allows for "peaceful assembly" AND "the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

To petition for redress is to petition the Government to address wrongs, make restitution, or remedy or restore something. You can "sue" the government or go after the desired change through the court systems or you can "lobby" the Government to make the desired changes through legislation. I have yet to see OWS officially engage in exercising this specific right.

But the Constitution does NOT give any individual group or movement the right to attempt to "force" the Government to meet your demands or act according to your desires outside of the due process of law outlined in the Constitution.

I have seen OWS attempting to make people believe that they DO have the right to attempt to "force" the Government, or the people, to do what they want by whatever means are necessary. THAT is unconstitutional.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 2 years ago

Excellent point and legally refined. My perceptions exactly. Accordingly the protests are what can defined as an abuse of rights because they are not within the due process of law. Abuse because the perceptions created within municipalities could be construed to protests, "peaceful assembly" that are within due process. In that case municipalities could refer (albeit wrongly) to OWS protests as justification to disperse assemblies. The legality could only be questioned after the fact.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'll be your leader . . . .

bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

Cut that out. You're starting to remind me of Boner, trying to choke back tears......................LOL

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

aww

Think Val Kilmer, in Tombstone . . .

I'll be your huckleberry

LoL

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 2 years ago

Ol' Doc Holiday...........Then there was Wyatt Earp, the original gun control advocate.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20539) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Interesting, isn't it?

[Removed]