Tyranny at Lafayette Park

The SCOTUS case you were citing doesn't seem applicable to the facts here because here there is no license or permit etc. required to be protesting. (at least not that I'm aware of) That's what I was talking about.

I also said that POTUS doesn't have the authority to make the laws. Whether it was Trump or Barr isn't really that significant to what I was saying. (and really, it isn't knowable due to the adminstration's low credibility, esp. after the bullshit about the use of tear gas) They are both executive branch officials, and I was talking about the separation of powers.

But really, I don't believe him because I have seen no evidence to support what he is saying and I have seen evidence to suggest that what he is saying is false. His credibility is pretty low after the tear gas bullshit anyway.

It's that kind of bullshit that tears the country apart.

Plus, I don't know what the big deal is over trannys in Lafayette Park.

you don't know why a US president sending soldiers to shoot peaceful protesters is a big deal? I thought the right cared about the constitution?

Plus, I don't know what the big deal is over trannys in Lafayette Park.

You must have missed the part where I showed you a Supreme Court Case buddy.

Is the president violating 2nd A rights to illegal aliens they confiscate guns from?

So if the supreme court rules that the government could take your guns, you would happily turn them over, right?

i have no idea how this question has anything to do with topic. 

Because no constitutional right is without exceptions, duh.

This is a terrible analogy lol. The Court didn’t stop the freedom to assemble. Banning guns totally stops the freedom to bear arms. One is regulation, other is getting rid of the right all together. Use a better analogy.

Because no constitutional right is without exceptions, duh.

fine, the courts rule you have the right to bear arms, but only the kinds of guns the government says you can have. lets say .22 or less. Or even better, you can bear any arms that existed at the time the constitution was written.

Guess what? Certain arms are already regulated from the public. Regulating and banning are two separate things.

ok, but a regulation that gives the president a blank check to decide when to use it may as well be a ban. because if he wants to ban it, he can decide that every occasion is a good time to regulate. 

A regulation isn’t a blank check to ban the right to peacefully assemble.

 And besides you should be arguing this in court. Oh wait..

you appear to be arguing that the decision of the supreme court gives the government the power to attack protesters whenever, and wherever they want. That is a blank check to ban the right to assemble. IE, if the police have the right to shoot you anywhere you choose to assemble, then you can't assemble anywhere. 

why? Obviously there needs to be reasonable limits on the right to protest. Attacking peaceful people with soldiers so the president can have a photo op is obviously, way, way over that line.

Well, no. The chain of events you portrayed are largely fictional. Do you have any reputable link you could share with us that corroborates your narrative?

Trump personally ordered their removal? Really? The links please.

In reality, Bill Barr was in a meeting on Friday (the week before) with US Park Police and they came to the consensus that the security perimeter had to be pushed back, and then on Monday he attended a meeting with other law officials to decide the dividing line, which put Lafayette Park out of the protester perimeter. The plan was supposed to be put in action immediately after the meeting, however, because many officers had been injured days before, they had to wait for additional National Guard troops to arrive. Once they were then ready, the Park Police tactical commander gave the go ahead.

Bill Barr himself doesn’t seem to have been involved in the go ahead or in the tactical command (much less Trump).

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/05/barr-says-he-didnt-give-tactical-order-to-clear-protesters-304323

Attorney General William P. Barr personally ordered law enforcement officials on the ground to clear the streets around Lafayette Square just before President Trump spoke Monday, a Justice Department official said, a directive that prompted a show of aggression against a crowd of largely peaceful protesters, drawing widespread condemnation.

Meanwhile, two federal law enforcement officials said the decision had been made late Sunday night or early Monday morning to extend the perimeter around Lafayette Square by one block. The plan was to be executed, according to the Justice Department official, the following afternoon. Barr was a part of the decision-making process, the official said, was not authorized to speak ahead of Barr addressing the matter himself publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn't move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John's Church. That's when tear gas was used. 

So one of these individuals must be lying through their teeth. Barr's response is equivalent to that of a child saying "I didn't eat the cookie in the cookie jar". That, combined with his penchant for lying:

makes his narrative a lot less credible.

Federal law requires a permit to be able to protest which they didn’t get. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 should help you

§1.5   Closures and public use limits.
(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:
(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.
(2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.
(3) Terminate a restriction, limit, closure, designation, condition, or visiting hour restriction imposed under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

§1.6   Permits.
(a) When authorized by regulations set forth in this chapter, the superintendent may issue a permit to authorize an otherwise prohibited or restricted activity or impose a public use limit. The activity authorized by a permit shall be consistent with applicable legislation, Federal regulations and administrative policies, and based upon a determination that public health and safety, environmental or scenic values, natural or cultural resources, scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, proper allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities will not be adversely impacted.

• Public health/safety
  
• Environmental or scenic values
  
• Natural or cultural resources
  
• Scientific Research
  
• Implementation of management responsibilities
  
• Proper allocation and use of facilities
  
• Avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities
  

Lemme guess the federal officials were anonymous...

In both sections, it is clear that the protests can ONLY be shut down or required to have a permit IF one or more of the following are adversely affected:

• Public health/safety
  

Yeah...it's going to take a LOT more than allegations from anonymous sources parroted on MSM by reporters making 50,000 dollars a day to lie to the public for me to lose faith in Barr.