Hey, don't miss this one. It's brilliant.
QUOTE
Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing that the president’s staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his.
Those who wonder how an absolute power to squelch dissent squares with the First Amendment are forgetting that while our unitary president makes our laws (remember signing statements?), no laws actually apply to him. Anyone daring to disagree with the president is dispatched with the bum's rush. Free speech? The unitary president doesn't want to be troubled with nonunitary opinions.The argument is silly:
QUOTE
Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman lost their motion for dismissal, and this week their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Mr. Young and Ms. Weise precisely because the two held views different from Mr. Bush’s.
“They excluded people from a White House event because they posed a threat of being disruptive,” said a lawyer for Mr. Casper, Sean Gallagher.
“They excluded people from a White House event because they posed a threat of being disruptive,” said a lawyer for Mr. Casper, Sean Gallagher.
Young and Weise were removed from the audience in a public event because of their political viewpoint. Their antiwar bumpersticker may have telegraphed a difference of opinion with the president, but differing opinions are not in themselves disruptive. They are, in fact, the foundation of democratic government. The president and his followers may want to control the message, but they have no right to control the thoughts of everyone else.
If dissenters can be kicked out of the president's audience, can dissenters be kicked out of the president's country for fear that they might become disruptive? Alberto Gonzales should look into it after he's done rehearsing his
