As much as I agree with her that this war is wrong, I think she’s only going to hurt her own cause, and I think she herself needs to seek professional help. This is not a slam-I think she’s somehow trying to avoid dealing with her son’s death.
Wouldn’t be surprised, but . . . cite?
Simple reason, it’s the house of representatives chamber during the State of the Union. The President has a position which affords him the right to speak there in the manner he sees fit, that isn’t something that is afforded to anyone else in the room (like the military leaders or the SCOTUS) during that time. Legally the House could allow its members latitude to do things like this, but years of tradition, house rules, and political decorum prevent that.
A private citizen can’t protest there because 1) you aren’t legally allowed to engage in political protest in the House as a private citizen and 2) she doesn’t have the floor and isn’t allowed to interfere with the speech.
She can oppose the war, and quite publicly. She just has no legal right or authority to do so in that place at that time. The House, believe it or not, is not a forum for the public, it’s a forum for the politicians who we elect.
As several news articles, one already cited in this thread have said, protesting inside the capitol is a misdemeanor. Whether or not it’s an issue of House rules is irrelevant since it does appear it is actually prohibited by legislation.
Egads! We CAN’T be thinking of the same Sheehan.
Freedom of speech isn’t unlimited. You can protest the Iraq war for example, but you can’t set up a protest booth in front of a hospital that completely blocks the entrance.
Likewise there are government places where you cannot protest if your protest is seen to be interfering with some government function, for example during a speech where the President is reporting on the state of the union to congress. Theoretically congress is there to hear the President’s report on the status of the union and just because you dislike the President you don’t have the right to interfere with the discussion by being disruptive.
As someone who believes in freedom and our Constitution, I find it hard to express how much a comment like this upsets me.
So long as she was not actively being disruptive, they should have left her alone.
Took a bit of searching, but this probably fits
All she had to do was put the shirt back on that she was wearing over that t-shirt, and she could have stayed. The Capitol Police, as is their legal and rightful discretion, saw the displaying of the shirt to be in violation of statutes that prohibit disturbing the legislative process and acted accordingly when she refused to comply with their lawful request.
So by merely sitting there with a slogan on her T-shirt, how exactly does this statute apply?
I fail to see how such action “disturbs, disrupts or interferes with, or attempts to disturb, disrupt or interfere with, any session, meeting or proceeding…”
Additional parts of the code that could apply as well:
It’s interesting how the OP has remained absent since it has been pointed out that Sheehan “unfurled an anti-war banner” only if by *unfurled *he meant wore, and by anti-war banner he meant Tshirt she was wearing all day.
Pretty transparent attempt to stretch the truth to fit the Pit. Pretty embarrassing dude.
To be fair, that’s how it was being reported. That was my initial impression from watching the news.
You might find this earlier post to be of interest.
From that post:
Why am i not surprised that the misinformation came from a White House source?
I think she accomplished exactly what she wanted to. I didn’t watch the speech, but checking several news sites I saw a headline about her being arrested right alongside the headlines about the SOTU address. She got her name and cause out in the public eye again, which I’m sure was her intent. I seriously doubt she planned on sitting through his speech and clapping at his brilliance.
It’s pretty sad when the wearing of a t-shirt constitutes “disturbing the legislative process.”
The test for this should be: Would those same guards have asked a person to cover up a t-shirt that said “George Bush” or “I support the liberation of Iraq”?
If they can honestly answer yes to that question, i’d be willing to concede that they made fair use of their discretion; if not, then they didn’t.
Actually, that doesn’t fit at all, because that’s Connecticut State Law.
oops :smack:
never noticed - did the search on .gov domain - However, I’d wager it’s patterned after the fed’s or visa versa.
To the numerous responses to my last post - point taken, they indeed had grounds to remove her. So why stick her somewhere to question her for an hour? Why arrest her, detain her, or whatever they did? A typical bouncer at a bar kicks out unruly patrons all the time and doesn’t let them get back in. All they needed to do was escort her to the door and tell her to get lost. Obviously the process is not rocket science. Why the heavyhanded tactics? I don’t like what this says about the way our country works, and how we react to nonviolent protest.
Consider the fact that she wasn’t trespassing, as she was invited. She wasn’t shouting or carrying on, she didn’t unfurl any banners - basically, she got either arrested or ‘detained’ and grilled for an hour for violating the dress code.
FWIW, I agree with Guinastasia - I think Sheehan was probably hurting her cause more than helping. If they really wanted to discredit her, he should have left her there and hoped that she started shouting. But regardless of who she is or what she represents, the reaction sounds over the top. They gave more credit to her through these actions than they would have by ignoring her or simply dumping her back out on the street. My $.02.