Ok, you diverse and far-ranging bright bunch. I know the FACE act is a Federal law in the US. What I don't understand is why it doesn't apply in some states. Is this because states can choose whether or not to accept a federal law?
I could be totally wrong about this, and if I am I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject will correct me, but I think it becomes a matter of who does the law enforcement. If it's legal on a state level, state law enforcement won't touch it, however if it's illegal federally the feds can still bust you. That's my understanding of how my state's medicinal marijuana law works. It's legal here, but it's still prohibited federally, so while the state police won't touch you, you can still get busted by the feds. They don't usually bother, as they've got bigger fish to fry, but they could if they wanted. Again, not my area of expertise, but that's how I understand it.
"The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus circumscribing state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.[2] In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite when one includes Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.[3] "
I suppose it could be argued that FACE is not a constitutional right, therefore it doesn't have to be enforced by the state, but may be enforeced by the fed. Hrm.. Interesting conundrum, because, as a previous commenter mentioned, the fed usually has bigger fish to fry. Now, if someone wanted to take the state to court over denying them access or if because of the state's lack of enforcement, someone ended up getting injured or killed, then I think something might be done about it.
I hate our legal system -- it's reactionary rather than proactive.
Probably similar to marijuana use in California, an act can be illegal but the local law enforcement officers may choose not to prosecute the lawbreakers. Also, the law is vague in several ways, what constitutes "intimidation" for instance. The pro-life states would use a much broader set of allowed activity than the pro-choice states.
I'm not a fan of FACE, if they wanted to restrict potentially violent outbursts at protests, it should affect all protests, not just abortion and religious establishment protest. They're singling out two topics of protest for special restrictions, which should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-07 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-07 11:51 pm (UTC)"The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus circumscribing state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.[2] In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite when one includes Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.[3] "
I suppose it could be argued that FACE is not a constitutional right, therefore it doesn't have to be enforced by the state, but may be enforeced by the fed. Hrm.. Interesting conundrum, because, as a previous commenter mentioned, the fed usually has bigger fish to fry. Now, if someone wanted to take the state to court over denying them access or if because of the state's lack of enforcement, someone ended up getting injured or killed, then I think something might be done about it.
I hate our legal system -- it's reactionary rather than proactive.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-08 04:02 am (UTC)I'm not a fan of FACE, if they wanted to restrict potentially violent outbursts at protests, it should affect all protests, not just abortion and religious establishment protest. They're singling out two topics of protest for special restrictions, which should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds.