That wil be a question for a judge to decide.Judicial Watch can certainly advocate for naming a street after them but the city is under no obligation to oblige.
The city isn't allowing other groups, the CITY painted the street.
Why wait til court? Let's argue right here. Or are you scared you'll lose?
What is political about saying "Black Lives matter"?
When the law says the police cannot be prosecuted for most actions while in uniform, that wouldn't have the affect you want.
I really don't give a **** about Klayman. Why are you so obsessed with him?
What blood? Blacks getting killed in confrontation with cops? How about the blood of blacks killed in the inner cities by other blacks? The blacks killed in confrontations are almost exclusively justified, just as they are with whites killed in confrontations with cops. In 2019, roughly 55% of those killed by cops were white. Less then 30% were black. Why not look at the root of the confrontations(hint-poverty) rather then pushing the false narrative that all of those killed in confrontations with cops are murder victims?
I'm not obsessed. I'm just talking about the subject of the thread. The man who founded the organization that this thread is about is racist. That's not an obsession. You're being rude claiming that it was.
Sure they can, and some of their actions can open opportunities for others to express themselves. If the government rejects First Amendment opinions, viewpoints and expressions based on the precedent they set .. it is wrong. This tactic was not presented for a vote .. it was ordered by the mayor through executive channels.
Yes and no. A judge can dismiss it if he believes its without merit but generally speaking yes you can sue and i would argue you should sue if two parties can not find an amicable resolution.Well, legally speaking, you can sue anybody for anything.
Progressive would of gotten angry and threaten her.What would have happened if the Mayor had painted "Blue Lives Matter"?
What would the reaction be here?
There is no First Amendment right - or any other Amendment for that matter - to use a public city street to paint a message on it. The people who can repaint city streets are the duly elected government of that municipality.
So the mayor of DC (or any other city) can use the streets for expressing opinions, viewpoints and expression in support of something they support while denying its citizens from doing the same?
So the mayor of Keystone, South Dakota could paint an opinion on the street in support of Donald Trump's July 3 rally?
Lakewood, Colorado in support of the bakery? Phoenix, Arizona in support of gun rights?
If the judge allows one and not the other, it will cause big trouble.The judge is going to tell the city what they can paint in their roads ?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
If the judge allows one and not the other, it will cause big trouble.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The same reason why Mayors/City governments are able to change the names of streets, commission statues and parks, re-zone areas, and countless other Executive functions.Cite? What law do you imagine gives city mayors the right to put whatever messages they want on streets? Ignoring the First Amendment?
Wait, so...they're allowed to use excessive force? That's the first I've heard about that....now I'm left wondering what all the hullabaloo is about...and why those cops have been charged at all. In fact, why bother having the term "excessive force"? If they're allowed, that's pretty meaningless, isn't it?
Progressive would of gotten angry and threaten her.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The same reason why Mayors/City governments are able to change the names of streets, commission statues and parks, re-zone areas, and countless other Executive functions.
The first amendment does not apply here. The public does not have a right to paint the street, but the City does.
So you would agree that Trump can have whatever message he wants painted on America's streets?
And since the supremacy doctrine generally goes Federal>State>Local in the law, he can order a mayor or governors' messages removed from streets?
If Trump orders "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" be painted on DC streets you would agree he can because painting messages on streets "Is just stuff government does"?
No, of course not.
That's not how the law works. The Federal government has no "supremacy" over local government.
Trump has no authority over the City of DC. He is not part of DC's government.
The federal government has significant power over DC, particularly in terms of local laws.Actually the Federal government has complete authority over DC. It's literally in the Constitution that way. They can repeal the local government completely if they feel like it.
You want to try again?
So the mayor of DC (or any other city) can use the streets for expressing opinions, viewpoints and expression in support of something they support while denying its citizens from doing the same? So the mayor of Keystone, South Dakota could paint an opinion on the street in support of Donald Trump's July 3 rally? Lakewood, Colorado in support of the bakery? Phoenix, Arizona in support of gun rights?
Make fun all you want now because its highly unlikely the courts wont rule in favor of judical watchLike super big trouble of just regular big trouble?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?