search
top

This is once instance …

where I agree with the ACLU.  They are going after a police Chief in Arkansas who’s instituting a curfew:

“Now, if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK, and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

I don’t know what constitution this guy reads, but it can’t be the same one I do.  I think it’s high time The Supreme Court ruled definitively on Curfew laws.  This might be an excellent case.

10 Responses to “This is once instance …”

  1. Chris says:

    the article is full of fun stuff though

    “Officers armed with military rifles, some with laser sights, have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence”

    Oh Noes!!! scary laser sights. /gasp

    “The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights. Other officers carry short-barrel shotguns.”

    Wait a minute!!! wouldn’t that make M-16’s, M-4’s and short barrel shotguns all items in common use?

    “As far as I’m concerned, at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law,” Councilman Eugene “Red” Johnson said. “Anyone out at 3 o’clock shouldn’t be out on the street, unless you’re going to the hospital.”

    How about those people that are coming home from work?

    “In the curfew area, those inside the homes in the watch area peered out of door cracks Tuesday as police cruisers passed. They closed the doors afterward.”

    the residents are probably afraid that the cops are going to start kicking in doors in order to make the people safer.

    ok commentary aside, this crap is gonna get kicked in the teeth the first time it goes in front of a judge.

    i dont see youth curfews being overturned though, personally, i am kinda in favor of those myself… guess im getting old…

  2. ATL says:

    “Now, if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK, and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

    How do we end up with people like this in public service? This is a straight up outrage and I hope the ACLU sues them into oblivion! I think a good rule would be to have public service figures serve jail time when they deliberately and willfully violate civil rights. I would back that mandatory minimum; the only problem is who would you have left to run NYC and Chicago?

  3. OrangeNeckInNY says:

    Didn’t the Nazis institute a curfew also back in their day?

  4. Mike Gallo says:

    “Didn’t the Nazis institute a curfew also back in their day?”

    Yes, but only a reasonable curfew. :p

  5. thirdpower says:

    It’s closer to the Soviet constitution. They had many more ‘rights’ than the US but all were at the whim of the Gov’t.

  6. Xrlq says:

    “[T]hat some infringement on constitutional rights is OK” is a stupid line, of course, but that’s neither here nor there. What part of the Constitution does a curfew supposedly infringe? My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say anything about curfews one way or the other.

  7. Sebastian says:

    It interferes with the right to free assembly, and I believe there is a common law right to travel, isn’t there?

  8. Xrlq says:

    Not sure why anyone would want to peaceably assemble to petition a government whose offices are closed, but that’s neither here nor there. As for a common law right to travel, it would take a pretty aggressive view of the Ninth Amendment to constitutionalize all such rights, let alone to construe such rights in such absolute terms. Stop signs and speed limits impact my right to travel; are they unconstitutional, too?

  9. Sebastian says:

    Does it say that, or does it grant blanket protection for peaceable assembly? If I want to peaceably assemble with my shooting buddies, talk about politics, the second amendment, and then walk home at 3AM, should I have to worry about agents of the state coming to harass me?

  10. Xrlq says:

    If you’re doing so in violation of some statute or ordinance, then you probably should worry. Otherwise, no. As to the petioning the govern$ent part, I’ll grant that they are two separate clauses that arguably should be interpreted separaly. Still, neither is absolute, and reasonable time, manner and place restrictions are routinely upheld.

top