Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

@Thomas,

oh, c'mon Thomas

Deregulation and lower taxes are the only way to fix it.

When all you have is a hammer... or in the case of conservatives, a slogan that they think is a hammer.

1 Reply

@parados,

Thanks for your guess, Parados, but Finn can speak for himself. I'm actually curious to hear his answer.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I am at least as aware of the Constitution as you are, maybe more so.

I have never once said these people did not have the right to assemble or protest, and I challenge you to find even one example where I have.

I have said that their rights can not infringe on others rights.
Since the park they are on in NYC is PRIVATE PROPERTY, even though the city maintains it, the owners of that property have every right to demand that the OWS people vacate the park.

And if the OWS people refuse, the owners of the property have the legal right to remove them.

4 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Since the park they are on in NYC is PRIVATE PROPERTY, even though the city maintains it, the owners of that property have every right to demand that the OWS people vacate the park.

New York zoning laws make it a public park, whether or not the title to it is held by a private or a public party. And since we're on the topic of challenging people about the constitution: Where does the constitution say that people have the right to own private property, that the police has a duty to defend their property rights for them, and that this duty trumps the right of other people to peacably assemble?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

You already gave your example, and was challenged for your opinion on personal property. Should have never been an issue.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Since the park they are on in NYC is PRIVATE PROPERTY, even though the city maintains it, the owners of that property have every right to demand that the OWS people vacate the park.

And if the OWS people refuse, the owners of the property have the legal right to remove them.

If you'll go back to the early pages of this thread, you'll see that this was discussed - and that it wasn't that simple.

0 Replies

The decision yesterday by Judge Michael D. Stallman addresses first amendment rights, the property owner's rights, and New York City health and safety regulations.

Quote:

The Court is mindful of movants' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. However, "[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times." (Snyder v Phelps, 131 S Ct 1207, 1218 [2011], quoting Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 US 788, 799 [1985].) Here, movants have not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the law and the owner's rules appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others for violations of law, or in tort It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus.

The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely. Neither have the applicants shown a right to a temporary restraining order that would restrict the City's enforcement of law so as to promote public health and safety.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Where does the constitution say that people have the right to own private property, that the police has a duty to defend their property rights for them, and that this duty trumps the right of other people to peacably assemble?

Jurisprudence on constitutional law goes beyond the words in the document. There is a 200 year history of court decisions on constitutional issues.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I am at least as aware of the Constitution as you are, maybe more so.

I have never once said these people did not have the right to assemble or protest, and I challenge you to find even one example where I have.

I have said that their rights can not infringe on others rights.
Since the park they are on in NYC is PRIVATE PROPERTY, even though the city maintains it, the owners of that property have every right to demand that the OWS people vacate the park.

And if the OWS people refuse, the owners of the property have the legal right to remove them.

Private property is not a right and the rights of property are not rights... The rights of property are privilages granted to certain people from which the whole society should expect a benefit... If it were a right, it would apply to all and it does not for one must possess property to have this so called right, and since gives rights on the basis of possession it gives more rights to those who possess more and it will inevitably result in those haing more today possessing all tomorrow if they are not stopped...We have unequal access to government by wealth... How long do you think it will be before those who have rights and nothing else will find their inalienable rights made alienable so they can be sold for a plate of slop???

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Where does the constitution say that people have the right to own private property, that the police has a duty to defend their property rights for them, and that this duty trumps the right of other people to peacably assemble?

Jurisprudence on constitutional law goes beyond the words in the document. There is a 200 year history of court decisions on constitutional issues.

Yes; but property rights have always been in flux... It was not so many centuries ago that inalienable church property was made alienable, that the property right to the commons was closed to people who counted on it for their lives and living, and slaves were freed, and human property made illegal... A right is what the people say it is, but behind every true right is what people find essential to and for their lives...With the rich taking the whole country for themselves, or at least any part they find worth having, and leaving the rest of us an the government with so much waste land they are at the same time sucking the meaning out of the word: Nation; since they do not support the commonwealth with taxes, and own far more than they can personally defend...

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

The decision yesterday by Judge Michael D. Stallman addresses first amendment rights, the property owner's rights, and New York City health and safety regulations.

Quote:
The Court is mindful of movants' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. However, "[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times." (Snyder v Phelps, 131 S Ct 1207, 1218 [2011], quoting Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 US 788, 799 [1985].) Here, movants have not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the law and the owner's rules appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others for violations of law, or in tort It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus.

The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner's reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely. Neither have the applicants shown a right to a temporary restraining order that would restrict the City's enforcement of law so as to promote public health and safety.

What tax does the owner pay for this park??? Shouldn't all property pay for its own defense???

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

New York zoning laws make it a public park, whether or not the title to it is held by a private or a public party. And since we're on the topic of challenging people about the constitution: Where does the constitution say that people have the right to own private property, that the police has a duty to defend their property rights for them, and that this duty trumps the right of other people to peacably assemble?

You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution. Amendment #9 of the Bill of Rights (and other provisions of the constitution) establish what is implicit throughout the constitution, that the rights of the people, including property rights, are fundamental and that those of the federal government are only as eneumerated in that document. The rights of the federal governmment to limit the use of the private property of individual people are only as eneumerated in the constitution. The right of the people to the free use of their property is fundamental. State an local governments establish laws and practices regarding the protection of private property and limits on its free use, such as zoning laws.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas (addressing Finn dAbuzz) wrote:

Alright, I'll bite: How would you reverse the current trend in the income distribution?

Everyone should buy bootstraps, of course.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/woman-raped-at-occupy-philadelphia/
http://thefeministwire.com/2011/11/occupy-rape-culture/

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I'm glad parados and DrewDad know how I would answer the question, because I'm not so certain.

Of course I'm not required to have a solution to every problem I can identify, nor do I need to know the right one to detect a wrong one. I've not taken up residence in city parks throughout the country and suggested I have a fix.

So I'm not feeling terribly defeated by admiting that I don't have a detailed comprehensive solution, although I certainly would like to.

Generally speaking, it will be important to get our economy up and running again and excessive regulations and increased taxes will not help in that regard.

For a number of reasons I believe we need major tax reform that eliminates all of the sweet deductions and credits politicians on both side of the aisle have fashioned for wealthy constituents (persons and corporations).

I don't see how the government confiscating money from the 1% is going to do it. No matter how much money the government seizes, it will not revitalize the middle class.

I think the fact that we have an ever growing global economy is part of the cause, and I don't see what can be done about that.

I'm listening and reading, and if I come across the solution, I'll share it with you.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Alright, I'll bite: How would you reverse the current trend in the income distribution?

In the first place one must look to the causes of the "current trend in income distribution" in order to discern an appropriate remedy. I don't think a case can be made for declining social welfare payments or even reduced government income redistribution as a cause. On the face of it the top tax rates have declined since the early 1970s when the trend first became discernable. However, tax exemptions for high income earners have declined or become tied to income at an even faster rate, and the AMT, which eliminates them entirely, has become, in effect, the real income tac for those earning more than about $180K annually. The monies involved in social welfare programs have grown very substantially during the period (even on a per capits basis). Most of the evidence points instead to the decline in the U.S. manufacturing industry (metals, manufacturing, textiles) as the main cause, and one that particularly affects the attainable incomes of those without advanced education. An added factor is our growing unfavorable trade balance - we import more every year and accumulate more debt, thereby threatening the value of our money and the ability of the government to moderate adverse economic effects.

Unfortunately the political debate today centers on programs for income redistribution rather than a reinvigoration of our competitiveness as a manufacturing and exporting country.

Government managed economic policies designed to protect the economic status of various groups of people tend very quickly to promote well organized political factions focused on the perpetuation of these protections at all costs. These eventually create a sclerosis that stifles new economic activity. Italy and Greece provisde stark examples of the consequences. Income redistribution is not a solution - it merely moves the problem around and gradually worsens it for everyone.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Thanks for that quotation, JW!

1 Reply

@Thomas,

No problem. This morning I heard a description of the judge's decision on the radio and realized that he covered some of the points discussed on this thread. I found a copy of the actual decision on the internet.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Where does the constitution say that people have the right to own private property, that the police has a duty to defend their property rights for them, and that this duty trumps the right of other people to peacably assemble?

Jurisprudence on constitutional law goes beyond the words in the document. There is a 200 year history of court decisions on constitutional issues.

True, and that was kind of my point. The First-Amendment rights are not limiteless. But neither are property rights. And constitution-thumping alone cannot tell you where the boundary is. For the record, I think the Supreme Court drew the boundary about right in the 1939 case of Hague v. CIO: "The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."

So I guess the question becomes this: Is Mayor Bloomberg regulating the use of Zuccotti Park in the interest of all? Or is he abridging or denying the right of assembly under the guise of regulation?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Amendment #9 of the Bill of Rights (and other provisions of the constitution) establish what is implicit throughout the constitution, that the rights of the people, including property rights, are fundamental and that those of the federal government are only as eneumerated in that document.

I actually agree with this. (Note that I hadn't taken a position on what follows from the absence of explicitly-mentioned property rights in the US constitution.) But I can't help notice that yours is an interesting statement, coming from a supporter of originalist jurisprudence. Robert Bork, in his confirmation hearings, has famously likened the Ninth Amendment to an inkblot of no legal consequence. Justices Scalia and Thomas, while less soundbite-y about it, have voiced similar attitudes about the Ninth Amendment. And as for yourself, I can't remember you taking a stand for the Ninth Amendment when the discussion concerned privacy rights, abortion, and other issues where the 9th Amendment is usually invoked. What made you abandon Originalism in this discussion?

1 Reply

Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know