Freedom-killing bill become law – ‘No Speech Zones’

Freedom-killing bill has just become law in USA – say hello to ‘No Speech Zones’:

Freedom-killing bill has just become law in USA – say hello to ‘No Speech Zones

Those of you who still believe the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, your faith is about to be shattered by a new law that likely will lead to, in essence, “no speech zones.” And, as is the case with most freedom-robbing legislation, this law is being justified in the name of security or, more appropriately, security for a select few. The measure, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, was signed into law by President Obama March 8 after it passed in the Senate following minor modifications made in the House. Critics are knocking the measure because, essentially, it restricts protests near the president. According to a “fact check” of the legislation, the current measure actually updates an original law passed in 1971 that “already restricted access to areas around the president, vice president and any other governmental official protected by the Secret Service, according to Thomas.gov,” the Florida Times-Union reported. The old version made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” violate certain restricted areas, such as the White House grounds and the vice president’s residence and grounds. The updated law changes it to just “knowingly,” and there is where legal analysts differ on the law’s actual meaning and application. A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, R-Fla., who introduced House Resolution 347, the law’s congressional designation, the Secret Service requested legislation that would clarify some jurisdictional issues for agents assigned to protect the president. For instance, the spokesman said, “[I]f someone were to jump the fence at the White House, the Secret Service would not have jurisdiction over the trespasser.” Critics say that by dropping the term “willfully,” the updated law gives the Secret Service unprecedented power to define what constitutes “restricted areas.” They say the law could chill the free speech rights of Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street protesters who are demonstrating in places where the president is present. “This is the state of mind the government has to prove you had to establish your guilt [the ‘intent standard’]. ‘Willfully and knowingly’ means that you need to know you’re committing a crime. ‘Knowingly’ just means you need to be aware you’re in a restricted zone, but not necessarily that it’s unlawful,” writes Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “H.R. 347 doesn’t create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. […]” he said. Not so fast, say the critics. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is a current legal analyst for Fox News, disagrees. He says he believes the law will directly affect the first amendment rights of Americans who want to peacefully assemble and present their point of view. “Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to useful speech; and unheard political speech is politically useless,” Napolitano said during a recent Fox News segment. Adds Russell Smith, a blogger for the New York Law School‘s Program in Law and Journalism, “[…] Since police can arrest and remove anyone in violation of [someone jumping the White House fence], the government doesn’t need H.R. 347 in order to protect its property from damage and its officials from intruders.” Rottman says that, on the surface, there may not be much to worry about. But the devil, as usual, is in the details. “Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse,” he said.

American Gov revoke passports of anyone with tax debt

Tax Debt? Feds Want Your Passport:

Tax Slavery

 

A year ago, we reported on the State Department’s new passport application rules, which some have called unconstitutional. A new bill now making its way through Congress could prevent even more Americans from traveling abroad. A transportation bill recently passed by the Senate contains a controversial provision that could allow the State Department to revoke the passport of anyone with an “excessive” tax debt.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added the tax enforcement language to an “Act to reauthorize the Federal – aid highway and highway safety construction programs”, probably categorizing it under the latter part of the title, “and for other purposes”. That bill — SB1813– was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in November. Before it was passed by the Senate on a 74-22 vote in March, it became the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21.  A recent Summary of the Senate Finance Committee Title of the Highway Bill on the Senate’s website reads:

Currently the Federal government revokes passports and denies new passports to individuals who owe more than $2,500 in child support payments. Similarly, this provision would authorize the government to deny the application for a new passport or renewal of an existing passport when the individual has $50,000 or more (indexed for inflation) of unpaid federal taxes which the IRS is collecting through enforcement action. It would also permit the Federal government to revoke a passport upon reentry into the United States for such individuals. This provision is estimated to raise $743 million over ten years.

The provision isn’t as draconian as a first glance would have you believe, but it would be precedent setting, says tax attorney Robert Wood.  “Does this [enforcement] apply in all cases? Mercifully no,” writes Wood in a recent Forbes piece. “You could travel if your tax debt is being paid in a timely manner or in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons. But this isn’t limited to criminal tax cases or situations where the government fears someone is fleeing a tax debt.” Wood reminds his readers that the IRS files liens and levies all the time and that under the tax enforcement provision of MAP-21, all it would take is an accusation of a debt to prevent any U.S. Citizen from leaving the country at their leisure.  According to constitutional attorney Angel Reyes, the provision is a violation of due process and is unconstitutional.  “It takes away your right to enter or exit the country based upon a non-judicial IRS determines that you owe taxes,” Reyes told FOX Business. “It’s a scary thought that our congressional representatives want to give the IRS the power to detain US citizens over taxes, which could very well be in dispute.”  Perhaps Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul wasn’t off his meds when he suggested last September that the lingering economic malaise might encourage federal-level capital controls (and even lead to what he called “people controls”). Those remarks, the target of popular ridicule at the time, came during a nationally televised Republican presidential debate.