Should Obama and the Feds now intervene in the OWS eviction

[coalition_unwilling]

planned for New York City? There are serious constitutional rights issues at stake here and Obama is sworn to execute faithfully the laws of the land.

So is it time for Obama and the Feds to land on Bloomberg and his toadies like a ton of bricks?

[Kennah]

1. Much as it would be oh so sweet for National Guard troops to be protecting protestors ...

... ain't gonna happen.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. There is precedent for it, I believe. Thinking Eisenhower and

Little Rock or JFK and the University of Alabama.

But I'm not holding my breath about Obama and Holder and crew.

[MFrohike]

4. Difference

Ike and Kennedy were enforcing court orders. Obama lacks legal justification beyond some nebulous Article 2 authority which is unlikely to pass muster.

[coalition_unwilling]

7. Events seem to be moving faster than dry court procedure might

allow.

If I were Obama and I wanted to re-seize the initiative politically, I'd send in the 82nd Airborne and land on Bloomberg like a ton of bricks and then dare him and his toadies to do anything to stop me.

Just my fantasy of how I'd like to see Obama seize victory from the jaws of defeat.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. I guess you've never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

42. I have heard of it but am certainly no expert on it. I guess my point

is that when there are serious constitutional issues raised (like the First Amendment rights of OWS occupiers, for example), the President and his or her administration have a responsibility to ensure that those rights are not violated.

So maybe my real OP should have been something along the lines of "Is there a legitimate First Amendment issue at stake here in Bloomberg's decree that Zucotti be vacated?"

As I posted elsewhere, events tonight are moving so fast that I seem barely able to get a fix on them.

[MFrohike]

24. Well

Obama could do that, but then he'd lose the initiative because preemptive action like that is not legal. Forgetting Posse Comitatus, which is one hell of a bar, without a court order or some enabling legislation, he has no authority to do it. While this is possible moment of change, and I'm hoping it is, it's not a true emergency that would allow for disregarding the law.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. Good points all. I posted elsewhere (to Cherokee Progressive, I think) that

maybe my real OP should have been along the lines of whether Bloomberg's decree that Zucotti be vacated raises serious First Amendment issues (which would give Obama a claim to legitimate jurisdiction, I guess) or whether Bloomberg's decree raises no Constitutional issues.

Events tonight are moving so fast that I seem barely able to get a fix on them before they have changed again.

[MFrohike]

49. Here's a scenario

I have no idea if anyone has filed for a temporary restraining order against Bloomberg and the NYPD. If they have, and they win the injunction, Obama would have authority, via a court order, to prevent the removal of OWS. I'm a little rusty on this sort of stuff, but I think have the essence of it.

[coalition_unwilling]

51. And I'm no expert either by any means. I was thinking some sort

of preliminary injunction granted in a U.S. District Court would give Obama ample jurisdiction, Posse Comitatus notwithstanding.

[MFrohike]

52. Good instincts

The only thing I really wonder is the level of the court. Ike and Kennedy were responding to Supreme Court rulings. Though, a TRO would be sufficient to stop the eviction until it's litigated. So yeah, it really would need to go to the Supreme Court or be denied cert for Obama to get into play.

[PoliticAverse]

8. Yeah the Federal Government has the Bonus Army to use as precedent...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Days that shall live forever in infamy. I think I was thinking that the

precedent of Eisenhower sending in the troops to Little Rock was more a propos here.

[leveymg]

57. Why do you not think they haven't already taken a coordinating role? google Gardenplot

[Hugabear]

27. National Guard would be more likely used to attack the protestors

We've seen it before, too many times :(

[ChillbertKChesterton]

36. Yep

got that right

[geek tragedy]

34. Yeah, it would be illegal. nt

[MFrohike]

2. No

It's not his show. It's a bit hard to hold establishment feet to fire when you rely on rescue from them. Plus, the constitutional issues belong in court, not the executive.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. Obama is President of the United States (including OWS). His duty

is to ensure that the laws of the land are executed, including protecting the rights of the citizenry.

Aside from political points he might (or might not) score from landing on Bloomberg and squishing him like the little bug he is, I'm thinking Obama and the Feds need to step in to make sure the constitutional rights of OWS are protected.

Just my take. Not holding my breath that Obama and Holder will do anything, mind you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. "to ensure that the laws of the land are executed..." Such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

[MFrohike]

22. I don't like the idea

If they accept assistance from him, that undercuts any claim of independence. I'm a 4th generation Democrat, but I have no desire to see the party directly involved in this. I don't view OWS as a means of picking up a few seats in an election, but as a way to begin fixing the problems that have driven me nuts for the last 15 years.

[Safetykitten]

5. Absolutely not! That would be making a hard decision.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. Intervene? On which side?

If you want Obama to do something about it, get some protestors to open a medical marijuana tent in Zuccotti Park. He'll have some people there in no time.

[Safetykitten]

17. That's gonna leave a mark.

[leftstreet]

21. +1

Excellent response!

[Hugabear]

39. Ouch! Painful, but true.

n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

45. Zing! Oh, snap (on me :) What a sorry state that it has come to this, that

while the forces of revolution and counter-revolution are poised on the brink of an epic confrontation, Obama is hosting a state dinner for the President of South Korea and staying absolutely silent on what may be going down in NYC tonight or tomorrow.

[eilen]

60. Giving away jobs for dessert. nt

[dana_b]

10. lol - umm..

I thought when I read your headline that you were saying that that the feds should help evict the protestors - because that is a much more likely scenario, imo.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

12. Obama is not on our side.

Accept it.

[PoliticAverse]

13. Courts have found that you don't have the right to sleep in a public park.

The City is apparently within its rights and the law in preventing people from sleeping there.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. This is not a public park. It is a privately owned park

[PoliticAverse]

28. It's kind of a public-private hybrid - the result of a building concession...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuccotti_Park

If it were purely a private park the demonstrators would have less rights to occupy it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. Parks used to be the people's. Now the rich control them. This must change.

[coalition_unwilling]

46. Good points you raise. Against which, I would ask whether there

are serious First Amendment issues at play.

Events tonight are moving so quickly that I seem barely able to get a fix on them before they have moved.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Oh you know as well as I do who Obama will intervene on behalf of.

And it ain't OWS protesters, that's for sure.

PB

[coalition_unwilling]

48. That would be a tragedy above most others. The tide of history has

turned and, were he to intervene on behalf of private property at the expense of OWS, Obama would put himself forever on the wrong side of history.

[Lionessa]

15. Should or not, I bet they won't. My question is...

If it comes to real violence, with the NATO Security Council (or whoever handled the Libyan issues) gather the balls to hold the US to the same standards? Since so many other countries are not being condemned for their violence against their protesters, I'm going to again guess "no".

[napoleon_in_rags]

18. I don't think so. OWS is going to be resilient.

Anybody who tries to make it look like its not happening, who plays the perception control game, just adds more pressure to the cooker. So I don't see any attempt to clear out parks as having long term impact...It just comes across as "the man behind the curtain" broadcasting the message "people aren't angry! trust us!".

[elleng]

20. On what basis?

'Serious constitutional rights issues?' Like what?

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. What section of the Constitution guarantees the right to camp on private property?

[coalition_unwilling]

50. So I take it from your response here and elsewhere that you see

no First Amendment issues raised whatsoever?

I posted above that, upon reflection, perhaps my OP should have been whether OWS in Zucotti raises any First Amendment issues. I can see arguments either way.

Unfortunately, events tonight are moving so fast that I seem barely able to get a fix on them before they have moved again.

[sabrina 1]

29. I don't think there is anything he can do legally in this case.

The reason why the NYPD has not thrown the protesters out of the park before this, was because they couldn't. It is not a public park. This was pointed out to them and their Wall Street Mayor in the beginning when they did appear to be planning to do that. The owners would have to ask them to do so.

But now, they can since the owners have requested that the protesters leave in order to clean the park. That gives the Wall Street Mayor and the Wall Street Police Dept the legal right to finally do what they wanted to do all along.

I'm not sure what a President could do in this situation other than to issue a statement in support of them being allowed to stay.

It definitely is a very transparent attempt to end this movement, but it is very likely to do the exact opposite.

I think if there is police violence tomorrow, Wall Street and their bought and paid for Police Dept can expect an invasion of their city by tens of thousands of people from all over the country. Each time they hurt a protester, the movement grows. You'd think they would learn.

[coalition_unwilling]

53. Words of wisdom (as usual). I do wonder whether there are

First Amendment issues raised such that OWS could obtain a preliminary injunction against Bloomberg and his toadies. With that injunction, the U.S. government gets jurisdiction.

But agree with you that police violence will only help grow the movement.

[markpkessinger]

30. Should? Yes. Will? Don't hold your breath. n/t

[grasswire]

31. you want POTUS to send in military troops?

Sorry, I think that's a really bad idea. Think about it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. It's also against the law. n/t

[Kennah]

40. Illegal to use the military, but the National Guard can be federalized

However, there would need to be justification. Now, if the police were walking through and just busting heads of protestors who weren't resisting, weren't fighting, weren't attacking that might be grounds for the National Guard or Deputy U.S. Marshals to prevent violation of civil rights under color of authority.

[geek tragedy]

33. This is none of his damn business. He's not your daddy so

you can call him when someone else is being mean.

[Galraedia]

35. Shouldn't NY's AG intervene?

Shouldn't New York's AG Eric T. Schneiderman be the one protecting their rights? I'm pretty sure what Bloomberg trying to doing is unconstitutional.

[Solomon]

37. Aw, he's not big enough to fail

That won't do. We need to find a way to blame Obama.

[Galraedia]

38. Why would we want someone to fail?

Or to blame? This is about continuing the protest.

[geek tragedy]

41. Actually it's not.

Forget about the private ownership--OWS doesn't have the right to, well, occupy a public space and prevent everyone else from using it.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Hmm, that's an interesting angle that I had not considered until now, that

OWS is preventing others from enjoying a public (or 'private-public') space.

Whew, my head is spinning tonight! :)

[coalition_unwilling]

54. Good question. I'll defer to the experts in NY law as to why the

NY AG has so far remained silent and above the fray.

[mfcorey1]

47. No. The protestors have requested that there be no political posturing at the occupations.

[NYC Liberal]

56. No. This is a local issue and Obama has no authority to get involved.

We have a president not a dictator.

[lynne]

58. No. It's a local situation, no reason for federal involvement -

- and, as its privately owned property, the owner is well within his/her rights to request persons to leave.

Not sure what laws you're wanting Obama to faithfully execute as I'm not seeing any federal laws being violated in this situation.

[aquart]

59. What eviction? Lovely morning!