WASHINGTON - Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it.

On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-power-act-congress-libya_n_877736.html

White House to Congress: We Don't Need Your Authorization On Libya

WASHINGTON -- The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn't need lawmakers' approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we're not at war.

Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya -- that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties -- and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn't need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed.

"We are confident that we're operating consistent with the resolution," an administration official said on a conference call with reporters. "That doesn't mean that we don't want the full, ongoing consultation with Congress or authorization as we move forward, but that doesn't go to our legal position under the statute itself, and we're confident of that."

The call came hours before the White House submitted a detailed, 32-page report to Congress that maps out the administration's legal justification for Obama continuing to call the shots on Libya without congressional approval.

See below for a copy of the report and Obama's accompanying letter to Congress. Lawmakers will be poring over it for details primarily on two things: 1) the costs of U.S. military operations, which the report puts at $715.9 million, from mid-March through June 3, and 2) the goals of U.S. involvement. The report gives a general sense of military goals as being "to protect civilians and enforce the terms" of the United Nations Security Council resolution, while political goals are to work with the international community "to bring stability to Libya and allow the Libyan people to reclaim their future."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84

Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria

WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.+Con.+Res.+107:

H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

___________

and so the impeachment of barrak obama aka

barry soetorro has begun

enjoy

namaste

See ya later freedom

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with this act. I also think though some of these protests get out of hand and are a bloody nuisance.

If we're honest few of us ever go along to a protest do we?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with this act. I also think though some of these protests get out of hand and are a bloody nuisance. If we're honest few of us ever go along to a protest do we?

From little things big things grow.
When you let one unconstitutional law in, others come, they get bigger and before you know it your freedoms were gone 10 years ago.
I think this is proved by the fact this law is like the 10th in recent months that can only be described as disgusting and totalitarianism.

Just watch TV here when we have protests.
The cops go in with their ID numbers removed &
bash people with clubs.
We're no better - police will always be thugs in
any country of the world.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 10:43am:

Just watch TV here when we have protests. The cops go in with their ID numbers removed & bash people with clubs. We're no better - police will always be thugs in any country of the world.

The funny thing is the people who support this think they would be immune and say something like 'dirty hippies got what they deserve'.
What happens when the right wants to protest?
The police won’t distinguish between left and right.

When freedom is destroyed for one citizen, it is destroyed for all citizens.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

White House to Congress: We Don't Need Your Authorization On Libya

WoW... So a representative of the obama government  actually told congress ( the American Public ) that they are not needed for approval of an act of war towards another country...much like a dictatorship...If the S (*)(*)t doesn't now hit the fan...it never will.

Guys please check my post on General Discussion - Comparison - 1984 and now. It relates directly to this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17ceF2rurU&feature=g-u-u&context=G2e3c76aFUAAAAAAADAA

Congressman: Bill Opens The Way for Impeachment of Obama

Last week Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) introduced H. Con. Res. 107, legislation which would make clear that should President Obama -- or any other president -- initiate the use of offensive military force without prior and clear authorization through an Act of Congress, the action would constitute an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.

"The issue of presidents taking this country to war without congressional approval is one that I have long been concerned about," said Jones. "Just last week, President Obama's Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the United States Senate that he only needed to seek 'international' approval prior to initiating yet another war, this time in Syria. Congress would merely need to be 'informed.' This action would clearly be a violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I recently took President Obama to court over this issue, as I did earlier with President Clinton. Enough is enough. It is time this country upholds the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded."

http://jones.house.gov/
http://www.infowars.com/

After seeing footage of peaceful protestors being beaten, tazered and arrested by police I suspect free speech by the masses always been discouraged in the USA.