The Wisconsin Constitution -The Legislature cannot prohibit an individual from entering the capitol

[Ellipsis]

Article 1 Section 4--The Wisconsin Constitution.


The Legislature cannot prohibit an individual from entering the capitol or its grounds 59 Atty. Gen. 8." --The Wisconsin Constitution.

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=wiscon&jd=top

They are breaking the law.

Article I, §4
Right to assemble and petition. Section 4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.


Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
A narrowly drawn anti-cruising ordinance did not violate the right to assemble or travel. Scheunemann v. City of West Bend, 179 Wis. 2d 469, 507 N.W.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1993).


Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
The right to intrastate travel, including the right to move about one's neighborhood in an automobile, is fundamental, but infringements on the right are not subject to strict scrutiny. Cruising ordinances, reasonable in time, place, and manner, do not violate this right. Brandmiller v. Arreola, 199 Wis. 2d 528, 544 N.W.2d 849 (1996), 93-2842.


Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
The legislature cannot prohibit an individual from entering the capitol or its grounds. 59 Atty. Gen. 8.


Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
Section 947.06, Stats. 1969, which prohibits unlawful assemblies, is constitutional. Cassidy v. Ceci, 320 F. Supp. 223.


Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
Wisconsin, a Constitutional Right to Intrastate Travel, and Anti-Cruising Ordinances. Mode. 78 MLR 735.

[Ellipsis]

1. kick

[Lifelong Protester]

2. They are most certainly breaking the law.

[Gothmog]

3. They tried this in Ohio. When will first lawsuit be filed?

The repugs tried this in Ohio and backed down when sued. There will be litigation on this issue

[Ellipsis]

6. They're working on it.

[Ellipsis]

4. Right to assemble and petition. n/t kick

[steve2470]

5. k&r nt

[Karia]

7. Kick

[Uncle Joe]

8. Kicked and recommended for the Wisconsin Constitution and the First Amendment.

Thanks for the thread, Ellipsis.

[louis-t]

9. Repugs will always try illegal means. If no one stops them,

they win.

[Ellipsis]

10. They are however letting lobbyists in.

[valerief]

13. They're family, figuratively speaking. nt

[Ellipsis]

15. Or in Walker speak, "one of us".

[pnwmom]

11. Except for the "unlawful assemblies" which may be prohibited.

Whatever they are.


Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
Section 947.06, Stats. 1969, which prohibits unlawful assemblies, is constitutional. Cassidy v. Ceci, 320 F. Supp. 223.

[Ellipsis]

18. Notice the year? 1969

[eShirl]

21. what is an unlawful assembly?

[LiberalFighter]

12. Will they let this stop them from keeping protesters out?

Last I knew Republicans don't pay attention to laws.

[Ellipsis]

14. They are currently not letting the public in... or not much of them anyway.

How can you who the protesters are and aren't... It's our house.

[The Nexus]

16. Think the "Fox News Assault" claim had something to do with this? nt

[Ellipsis]

17. Wisconsin DOA just issued a new statement about access to the Capitol today and tomorrow.

It reads: Since the building opened at 8:00 a.m. today, law enforcement officers have been engaging in a dialogue with union representatives about a designated area in which the protestors can remain and about rules they should abide by while in the building. Officers in the building are continuing to work with union representatives and the protestors in the building to gain compliance with these requests.

"No additional protestors will be allowed into the building until these discussions have reached a resolution. At that time, law enforcement will continue to implement the procedures that were announced this morning regarding the admittance of protestors to the Capitol building. Specifically, protestors will be allowed into the building, but crowd size will be adjusted to accommodate the cleaning crews, the preparation for the Tuesday’s joint legislative session and the number of protestors who remained in the building overnight. When additional protestors are admitted to the building, law enforcement will establish a queue and admit them through the King Street entrance.

"Beginning at 8:00 a.m. this morning, members of the public were allowed to enter the building to meet with legislators or other officials who work there. Individuals who wish to see their legislators but do not have an appointment can request law enforcement officers at the King Street entrance to call the legislative office. Legislative staff can escort up to eight people into the building for these meetings. Unfortunately some of these requests were delayed this morning while officers responded to an individual who climbed onto a balcony on the East Wing of the State Capitol Building."

3:51

[Blue Owl]

19. So how many laws will be violated by Gov. Walker before this is thru?

Let's see, so far:

1) illegal use of state law enforcement
2) considering planting stooges to incite fake violence
3) denying capitol access to individuals
4) sealing the capitol windows shut

The list goes on and yet still this weasel is free to wreck the state...

[strategery blunder]

20. I hate to be a killjoy

but the citation to the relevant annotation, "The Legislature cannot prohibit an individual from entering the capitol or its grounds," is to an Attorney General's opinion. It's just that, an opinion, filed away. It's essentially legal advice given by the AG to the rest of the government, but the position has not been affirmed as legally binding precedent yet. (If it has, the annotation needs to be updated with the more authoritative source.)

Courts pay attention to Attorney General opinions, but a court would consider such an opinion somewhat like a friend-of-the-court brief. It might get a bit of extra consideration by the court because it has the AG's signature on it. But unlike, say, Supreme Court precedent, the court is not beholden to follow it.

I know not everyone is or can be a lawyer, but I really wish that schools would teach the basics of how to read legal citations in civics class when covering the judiciary, at least to the point of being able to recognize what type of authority is cited. This should be taught alongside the structure of our court system (trial courts, appellate courts, Supreme Court). All citizens should be able to tell the difference between an AG opinion and an actual court case, imo. One carries a lot more authority behind it than the other.

Now, I certainly agree that in this case, the AG opinion happens to be correct. I would hope the state courts would affirm its premise in decisions of precedential value. I know that lower courts have already ruled the building should be open, and the governor defied the order. But it does our side a disservice to mistake an AG opinion for something that is actual, legally binding court precedent.

[Ellipsis]

22. Love your moniker...

Well counsler, I kinda think you might enjoy being a bit of a killjoy whether it be conciously or not by pointing out flaws in particular tactics. And while I have met and worked with many an attorney I might just disagree to some extent that anybody just can't be one, however non-germain.

Though perhaps yes... a poor one.


But you sir, strike me as excellent attorney with a more particular analytical skill set then some I've met. I'm sure you manage quite well give the position of your argument.

Indeed the letter of the law verses the spirit of the law, many moons ago when I was just a young whippersnapper, I swear I could remember the capital being open 24 hours a day... but that was when people didn't find a need to lock their doors at night.

The judge is to make a determination this morning and whether things continue up the food chain from there... we shall see.


Sure do love DU sometimes... have a good day.

[strategery blunder]

23. I should mention that I'm not a lawyer

I only have paralegal training. Can't afford law school. I get to find this kind of stuff so the lawyer can argue it in court :)

It irks me, however, when people are taught in the public school system to look for sources, but not to identify them and give them their proper weight. As the judiciary is a coequal branch of our government, and court cases do come up in civic discourse, I believe everyone should know how to at least read a legal citation and identify where it came from, same as a citation to a book.