Cindy should sue the admin for violating her right to free speech. nt

[thereismore]

[LiberalEsto]

1. She's looking into it now. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. Small point

It was the Capitol Hill Police who arrested her, and they don't take their orders from the White House (unless there is something that we don't know).

[Don_1967]

3. Still someone gave the orders

and I can count the suspects on one hand.

[thereismore]

8. Still, they are part of the executive branch. nt

[Sammy Pepys]

4. How could she sue the admin?

It was the Capitol Police who arrested her.

The State of the Union address is something that Congress handles...they set the date and time, and invite the President. BAsically, Congress says "Here's when you're coming," and the President goes.

[ccpup]

5. Quick question

Are the Capitol Hill Police hired by the Administration to police the event? If so, as the Capitol Hill Police's employer, they would be responsible for any potentially illegal action, right? Writing off the top of my head with absolutely no knowledge of anything, so pardon me if it's a really dumb point and/or idea.

[Sammy Pepys]

6. No.

The State of the Union is not a "Presidential event"...as I noted in another post, it's essentially administered by Congress.

[Neil Lisst]

7. sue everyone, let them move to dismiss if they have defenses

I wouldn't automatically conclude that any action taken did not have some basis in instructions from the WH. Just because the functionaries were Capitol police doesn't mean they received no instructions from the WH. In fact, they very well might have.

Given the extent to which the Bush WH has used all police everywhere to quell dissent or protest, that would not be surprising.

[FormerRepublican]

9. And her right to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances.

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

10. I hope the ACLU is involved.

if not, they need to be.

[SaveElmer]

11. Well...

I think this arrest is a bit silly...but I have to tell you, when I was in college I was an elevator operator in the Capitol, and I can tell you there are very strict rules of conduct in the House and Senate Chambers. I wasn't there, but I am sure she was warned that any display, including on apparel was not allowed. She likely has absolutely no grounds for suing them.

[Steve A Play]

12. Sorry but I strongly disagree

Your expert opinion as an elevator operator notwithstanding. :)

Here is the actual law she was charged under as posted by someone on another thread.

CITE- 40 USC Sec. 5104 01/19/04

-EXPCITE- TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS SUBTITLE II - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS PART B - UNITED STATES CAPITOL CHAPTER 51 - UNITED STATES CAPITOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

-HEAD- Sec. 5104. Unlawful activities -STATUTE- (a) Definitions. - In this section - (1) Act of physical violence. - The term "act of physical violence" means any act involving - (A) an assault or other infliction or threat of infliction of death or bodily harm on an individual; or (B) damage to, or destruction of, real or personal property.

(2) Dangerous weapon. - The term "dangerous weapon" includes - (A) all articles enumerated in section 14(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (ch. 465, 47 Stat. 654); and (B) a device designed to expel or hurl a projectile capable of causing injury to individuals or property, a dagger, a dirk, a stiletto, and a knife having a blade over three inches in length.

(3) Explosives. - The term "explosives" has the meaning given that term in section 841(d) of title 18. (4) Firearm. - The term "firearm" has the meaning given that term in section 921(3) of title 18. (b) Obstruction of Roads. - A person may not occupy the roads in the United States Capitol Grounds in a manner that obstructs or hinders their proper use, or use the roads in the area of the Grounds, south of Constitution Avenue and B Street and north of Independence Avenue and B Street, to convey goods or merchandise, except to or from the United States Capitol on Federal Government service.

(c) Sale of Articles, Display of Signs, and Solicitations. - A person may not carry out any of the following activities in the

Grounds: (1) offer or expose any article for sale.

(2) display a sign, placard, or other form of advertisement.

(3) solicit fares, alms, subscriptions, or contributions.

(d) Injuries to Property. - A person may not step or climb on, remove, or in any way injure any statue, seat, wall, fountain, or other erection or architectural feature, or any tree, shrub, plant, or turf, in the Grounds.

(e) Capitol Grounds and Buildings Security. - (1) Firearms, dangerous weapons, explosives, or incendiary devices. - An individual or group of individuals - (A) except as authorized by regulations prescribed by the Capitol Police Board -

(i) may not carry on or have readily accessible to any individual on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings a firearm, a dangerous weapon, explosives, or an incendiary device;

(ii) may not discharge a firearm or explosives, use a dangerous weapon, or ignite an incendiary device, on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings; or

(iii) may not transport on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings explosives or an incendiary device; or

(B) may not knowingly, with force and violence, enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress.

(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. - An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly -

(A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House;

(B) enter or remain in the gallery of either House of Congress in violation of rules governing admission to the gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to an authorization given by that House;

(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;

(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; (E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings;

(F) engage in an act of physical violence in the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings;

or (G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.

(3) Exemption of government officials. - This subsection does not prohibit any act performed in the lawful discharge of official duties by -

(A) a Member of Congress;

(B) an employee of a Member of Congress;

(C) an officer or employee of Congress or a committee of Congress; or

(D) an officer or employee of either House of Congress or a committee of that House.

(f) Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags. - Except as provided in section 5106 of this title, a person may not -

(1) parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Grounds;

or (2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could almost twist the last part of the very last sentence to make a claim that her shirt was a "device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement" but since her shirt only mentioned a factual number of 'non partisan' military dead and only asked a reasonable question that could be asked by both war defenders and detractors, "How many more?", it would also seem reasonable to counter argue that using the law to ban either her shirt or the "Support the Troops" shirt worn by the Florida Congressman's wife, as an un-Constitutional infringement on their right to freedom of expression. The spirit and intent of the law as written must be considered along with the 'letter of the law' when applying it. This law does not constitute a 'dress code' per se.

As you can plainly see, the law as written was clearly intended to do two things, assure the safety of all participants and spectators of government proceedings and also to assure that the people's business is not hindered by unreasonable protest by any one faction, group, or individual. Neither of the 'offending' shirts presented a danger to anyone, nor did they blatantly promote any one party, organization, or movement. Ironically they both were worn in support of our non-partisan military, the very people who lay down their lives to protect our freedoms.

"We, The People" must never allow our representatives to shield themselves from criticism by their attempts to outlaw the peaceful, public display of the truth from their presence.

I'm certain that instituting any form of restrictive 'dress code' that went beyond assuring general public health and decency would be struck down by the courts as a barrier to people of limited financial means. Such a law would, in effect, shut them out of fully participating in the very system of government designed to protect their equal rights regardless of their wealth or social status.

Steven P. :kick:

[SaveElmer]

13. Like I said...

I found her arrest silly and unnecessary, and her treatment beyond what was required...I am just telling you, based on having worked there, interacting on a daily basis with the Capitol Hill Police, and as one who would spend his off hours watching the Senate, what my experiences were with how the chamber and its rules were carried out.