At all? The law was first passed in 1971. This year's revision is minor.

In other words, it can appear small but might be bigger.

incrementally in tiny seemingly innocuous ways with huge repercussions afterwards. The Nazis were experts at criminalizing stuff that wasn't criminal without the Germans knowing it was going on until it was too late.

Proposition 13 in California, the Jarvis Amendment was just one such fix, not about criminality, but about our social obligations. It was sold as lowering property taxes so that old people wouldn't lose their homes to taxes rising because of higher real estate appraisals. It had support from both sides of the aisle. The effect was to eventually end our free university education system that we had, and to end our infrastructure of social programs that threw out in the street all the marginal and dysfunctional people who were taken care of by the taxes starting the institutionalized homelessness we see now. Property prices went through the roof bringing in foreign investors basically pricing many families out of ever owning their own homes.

It too began the mess we see today with the mortgage crisis, student loan slavery and the inability of people without health insurance to get needed health care. One little amendment led to this mess that is California and the nation at large today.

Go try to scale the White House fence if you feel that strongly about it!

Sorry it bothers you so.

perhaps you can tell me, what is the legal definition of that terminology?

I have asked this question several times but haven't received an answer yet.

"They added this part, 'special event of national significance'"

...not added.


New:

It's fearmongering by the Ron Paul types.

I'm not talking about the reality of who a Ron Paul supporter is but what you imagine they are.

There are four offenses defined in 18 USC 1752 as amended by HR 347.

First, there is the offense of entering and remaining in a restricted area. Prior to HR 347 this offense required a showing of knowing and willful conduct. Under HR 347, willfulness is no longer an element, but instead it must be shown that the accused acted with knowledge that they were "without legal authority" to enter or remain in the restricted area. Net result: proving an offense under this first provision is at least as difficult, if not more difficult than it was under prior law.

Second, there is the offense of disrupting/impeding the orderly conduct of government by engaging in disorderly conduct in a restricted area where such conduct actually does impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of business. Pre HR 347, the law required that this offense be commited "willfully, knowingly, and with intent". Now it requires that it be committed "knowingly and with intent" -- the only change is that the redundant requirement of both "willfullness" and "intent" has been boiled down to the requirement of intent.

The third offense is impeding or disrupting the orderly course of business by obstrucing ingress/egress to a restricted area. Pre HR 347 the law required that this offense be committed "willfully, knowingly, and with intent." After HR 347, the requirement is that the accused be shown to have acted knowingly and with intent. As with the prior provision, this change has no substantive effect since it simply removes the redundant requirement that the accused act both willfully and with intent.

Finally, the fourth offense defined in 18 USC 1752 is engaging in any act of physical violence against any person or property in a restricted area. The pre HR 347 provision included both willfulness and knowledge as elements. Post HR 347, the law would only requrie a showing of knowing behavior- as in the accused knew that he/she was engaging in an act of physical violence. Now I suppose in this one instance, changing the law may make somewhat of a substantive difference. I suppose someone could engage in an act of physical violence and argue that they knew what they were doing but didn't do it with "evil intent". Seems like a bit of a stretch, however, which may be why the preceding section of the US Code (section 1751), which makes it unlawful to kill, kidnap, or attempt to kill or kidnap, or assault the President (or certain other designated individuals), does not now, nor has it ever to my knowledge, had a willfulness or intent requirement. Indeed, the law specifically provides that the prosecution doesn't have to prove the accused knew that the person that they killed, kidnapped, assaulted, etc. was the president or another person protected by this section.

So, balanced against adding to the protection that this bill gives to the President and VP, and adding the "without lawful authority" element to the first provision, I think the deletion of references to willfulness are pretty meaningless.

Hope this provides additional perspective.

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The courts have ruled "willfully" includes that a jury must find that the defendent acted an evil-meaning mind, that they acted with knowledge that their conduct was unlawful.”

"Knowingly", only “requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense,” unless a statute’s text dictates otherwise.

It also includes places someone under secret service protection may be scheduled to visit (but not there at present of arrest). It also includes anyone given secret service protection, not just the President and Vice President that might be present.

It also makes it easier for a person to violate § 1752.

When it comes to Bill of Rights issues, I tend for more, not less restrictive proof of offense or unlawful conduct.

Your points are duly noted.

however, two of the four provisions expressly require both knowledge and intent, so dropping "willfully" from those provisions doesn't change anything. In the first provision, its now harder to violate the law since the government has to prove that the accused knew that they were without lawful authority to be in the restricted area. As noted, its true that the law no longer requires that acts of physical violence be committed "willfully" but that's not unusual for such types of behavior.

I'm generally with you on BIll of Rights issues -- however, I should add that I don't view physical violence against another person or someone else's property as a protected First Amendment right (which is why I'm not so concerned about the dropping of the "willful" element from the fourth provision.

One last point: you mention the scope of the bill's coverage with respect to restericted areas where the President or someone else protected by the secret service will be (but is not presently) visiting. That language, of course, has been in the law for a very long time and would still be in the law if HR 347 was not enacted.

Thanks.

than the agenda of the 1% to keep limiting the rights of the 99%. If they were needed, George Bush and Dick Cheney would have been assaulted or even assassinated in their first term. Don't think there weren't some out there itching to do it but the protection given to them seemed to be sufficient to prevent it.

...in ginning up outrage over this? Put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead and try to scale the White House fence so you can create a court case out of this.

Otherwise, you are only wasting everyone's time trying to 'convince' people that the sky is falling.

It is not.

Ginning up outrage? I'm pointing out an unpleasant fact but apparently freedom of speech with you stops at what you want out here in the blogosphere and any little disagreeable argument I'm making to you is "ginning up outrage". I don't need to scale the WH fence to launch a protest buddy, but I do need access to the eyes that should be aware of the fact that there are pissed off people out there and one that won't sink facts into the mire if you have to go to court.

The government can't be trusted. They are out to get us!

You don't seem willing to engage in a rational discussion, you just want everyone to be as panicked as you are.

The fact that Denis Kucinich voted for this should tell you something but I guess no one has any credentials if they aren't as scared as you.

As a matter of fact I want even more government to take care of our social/economic problems. However, real government is for the people and by the people. It says so in the Constitution. Anything else is special interests trying to take over government and this has been going on in a big way since that senile old fart and ham actor Reagan became President. I have disagreed with some of Dennis's votes before and disagree with this one, even though I worked on his Presidential campaign and would do so again if he should decide to run in the future.

Incidentally, I'm not scared. You are the scared one, afraid to stand up to those who would whittle away at your freedom of speech.

I'm looking at the facts, not the wild accusations that we are now living in a police state.

So...Denis Kucinich. Anyone you admire? Or is he in on it, too?

make sense.

I'll repeat it: Denis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders voted for this bill and Ron Paul voted against it. Which politician do you trust more to have our backs?

was no good outcome. As for Ron Paul, sometimes he's on the same page as liberals, just not all the pages. I'm sure Bernie and Dennis voted for this in exchange for votes on some other legislation they are trying to get done. They are politicians and they deal in trade offs. It doesn't make it right but I understand why they do it.

vote for him. I don't do any of those things. No, I'm not a supporter of his or any of others in the clown car, but there are times they have been on the same page as the Democrats. For instance Romny did so-called Obamacare in Mass. before Obama did it. Of course I'm a single-payer advocate so I don't agree with any of them on either side about this. It's my choice to question everything our politicians do, even the ones I voted for and do support. I'm not a big Obama supporter, or wasn't in 2008, so I don't agree with some of the things he does, for instance not closing Guantanamo, but he does get my support over everyone in the clown car in November. I still reserve the right to criticize him and Dennis and Bernie if they do stuff I don't like. That isn't supporting Ron Paul. What a strawman!

how their, to you, favorite politicians vote? I have no problem disagreeing with a politician I otherwise admire when I believe s/he is wrong regardless of how much I respect them. In this case, while I admire both Sanders and Dennis Kucinich I disagree with them.

You seem to be implying that people should just go along with something even when they disagree with it, because someone they admire is supporting it? Why should people do that? That is what we criticized Bush supporters for doing.

You should stop doing that when people are trying to be reasonable and just have a discussion. I'm not sure what to think about this bill. I read all the ProSense faction's explanations about the 1971 law, and I see the point there. I also question why this law needed to be revised, and yes, I've read the rationale for that here in GD, but it still doesn't sit well with me. But it doesn't help when you just attack the everlivingfuck out of anyone who would question your line of reasoning. It doesn't sway anyone to your way of thinking, I can tell you that much.

people can talk about aspects of this - and I appreciate them doing so.

This was a trivial update to a 1971 law. That's all it is. There are plenty of real things to be outraged about.

and you are making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions.

and you make yourself look like a jerk. he's talking about specifics - if you can't stand for him to do that, trash this thread so you don't see it.

but don't attack to make people stop talking about something that is of concern to them.

The law originated in 1971 and this update added the President and VP's residences to the list of places protesters are restricted from going.

So enlighten us all, please -how does this make us into the police state that is being claimed?

Here's what he said his concern was: I oppose it on the basis it leaves "knowingly" as the only lone mens rea requirement.

So, how do you get from that statement to your hysteria and false claims?

The WH apparently isn't an impenetrable as you think. And while the Salahi's were clowns, not bad guys intent on harming the president or his family, the fact that what they did would violate 18 USC 1752 if the dinner they crashed was at a hotel but not where the dinner was in the WH is sufficient reason to amend the statute, imo. I don't have any worries about giving the authorities additional tools to protect the President from people actually entering the WH or its grounds or the VP's residence and grounds without lawful authority to do so.

clown entry by the likes of the Salahis or even some more nefarious penetration. The Salahis are basically skilled party crashers. One of my girlfriends and I used to crash big Hollywood parties back in our early twenties until we decided to grow up. It was a game with us. It's not that difficult to do once you identifying where the gatekeepers are not paying attention. It was strictly security letting down their guard. It's apples and oranges and no law will prevent it from happening. What it does is criminalize what could be a prank or should be a right to voice dissent.

Why make the crime of killing the president different than any other homicide? Obviously, if someone kills the president the security team has failed to do its job.

Maybe making it a federal offense to enter the WH without authority will have a deterrent effect and maybe it won't. But I have no problem with punishing those who commit that particular crime.

And points to you for equating crashing a Hollywood party with crashing the White House.

These laws are not it. I have nothing against punishing crimes either but I want them to be real crimes, not criminalizing an activity because those in power don't want the inconvenience of dissenters nipping at their heels.

On another note, party crashing and not getting caught is an art that works the same no matter where you do it, your neighbor's Bbq. or the WH. Actually, the WH would be a special challenge and would have been very exciting to do back in the day among those of us who were aficionados of this particular sport.

It leaves "knowingly" and adds "without lawful authority".

Sid

Your defense is that you knew you were in the WH, but you didn't have knowledge that you lacked the legal authority to be that particular area. You have a defense.

Or you want to protest a visiting dictator at a government building, etc.

One of the things driven home to me by the police, when I got pulled over for a traffic offenses in my early days of driving, was that ignorance of the law doesn't not excuse you from the law.

voted against this (Kucinich voted for it, which should tell you which direction this "outrage" is coming from ) and is using it to drum up support and money.

I just didn't like the change because of the change in latitude for those that arrest and/or prosecute. I do not think the world has ended or anything.

And in the VP's house!

We should all thank Congress for spotting this loophole, and closing it.

Denis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders both voted in favor of it. That should at least give you room to re-think.

Interprets this.
Centrist/moderate dems in this thread had better rush to republican defence(they already do) & make it known proudly.

'I support extra-judicial killings of Americans ) - and IF a the democratic party should put up a real democrat who opposes random interpretation - they had better support the republican.

Is that it opens up a whole new world of abuse for the Republicans once they are back in the White House. Obama may or may not exploit this law to crack down on protesters, but we all know the 'Pugs will, and sadly, Obama and the Dems are going to hand them this weapon with which to do so.

What is it about this simple fact that people have a hard time comprehending?

Since 1971, yes, it has been illegal for a person to enter designated Secret Service areas knowingly. Under this new iteration of that law, it will now be illegal, and prosecutable, for people to enter such an area, even if they don't know about it and have no reason to suspect than a certain area has been declared as restricted.

Thus, the Secret Service could throw a blanket restriction over, oh, say Zucotti Park, not make that generally known, and then arrest and prosecute any protester entering the park. Am I saying that this will happen under Obama, no. But I am saying that this bill will open the floodgates to Republican persecution in the future. Do you think that's a wise idea?

"willfully and knowingly" is how the law reads. That is subject to interpretation by a judge.

And it was revised to add the President and VP's residences to the list of places where protesters cannot go.

Simple enough to me.

"In this section-- [<-Struck out]

‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area-- [<-Struck out]

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; [<-Struck out]

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or [<-Struck out]

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and [<-Struck out]"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-347

Rather broad language, and you can bet the 'Pugs will take full advantage of it. Meanwhile, groups like Code Pink and others who bravely protested in the halls of government will now be subject to criminal penalty.

Funny how some people are fine with attacks on our civil liberties when it is Democrats who are doing the attacking.

‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;'

This is NOT an attack on our civil liberties unless you want to believe it's part of a 40 year plan begun in 1971.

On edit: No, wait a sec, that was the part that was struck out. My bad. But my point is that this was an inconsequential change to an existing law passed in 1971.

The restated law applies to four situations.

The first is "knowingly" entering or remaining in a restricted area "without lawful authority." On its face that is only a crime if the accused acts knowingly (meaning the accused knows that they are in the a restricted area and also knows that they lack the lawful authority.

The second and third involve engaging in disorderly conduct and blocking ingress/egress to restricted areas. In both instances the law on its face requires that these acts be committed with both knowledge and intent.

Finally, the law makes it a federal offense to "knowingly" commit an act of physical violence against a person or against property in a restricted area.

So it appears that you are zero for four in your understanding of HR 347 and your contention that it represents a "drastic expansion" of current law is utterly baseless.

Blue links out the ass defending them - cause that's what they are setting them selves up for.

In Paris between the Vietnam & the LBJ admin.

That the Democrats are passing laws that seem sensible if applied by sensible government, but might be abused if Republicans come back into power.

Question: if Republicans come back into power, won't they just pass laws the way they like 'em anyhow? Why would a Republican-controlled government care about potential cracks in old legislation, when they can write new legislation that better conforms to their batshit-crazy views on how to govern?

Thanks.

Most laws can already be interpreted to one party's advantage as they stand.

Somehow Republican fears have infected DUers. The government can't be trusted! They are out to get us all!

This bill was a sensible change to a 1971 law. Nothing sinister about it.

And not bother with having to go through the hassle of passing such legislation, especially when they don't know how much control of the government they will have in the future.

Pass this through now, and use it later, it is an age old tactic that has been used by both parties.

Are you thinking of a specific example where this has happened?

they put on our court benches.

not necessarily talking about this particular issue - I'm just trying to read up about it.

We see this with democrats, too, regarding issues that some find really overstepping in regard to the WoT - I also know govt overreactions are common in such national moments b/c of the fear of not protecting and being blamed, etc...

Once something is codified as law, it's a lot harder to step back from it, whatever it is.

the two parties seem to share a lot of the same viewpoints on national security and WoT and other issues (economic globalism strategies) in many ways - it's the culture war issues that really define differences.

Now that we've established that, I view 347 as an affront. To the first amendment.

I prefer the bar for arrest and prosecution be higher, not lower.

It needed to be said.

I prefer rational discussion on what the changes might constitute prima facie evidence in a future scenario. I don't understand what really constituted the need for this particular part of the change.