Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Claypool gets two big endorsements
Next Post: Guv to appeal
Posted in:
Pat Quinn has an interesting idea.
Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn says he’s introducing legislation that will prevent protests at funeral services.
Quinn says the “Let Them Rest in Peace Act” is a response to a series of demonstrations at funeral services for military personnel.
The act applies to all funerals and memorial services. It creates a 300-foot buffer zone between protesters and the site of funeral services.
The zone would be in effect from 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the funeral.
I doubt this would be constitutional. And I’m not one for banning speech of any kind. But Quinn has attended almost every funeral of fallen Illinois soldiers, so he’s most likely had a bellyful of those Westboro Baptist “church” morons.
Quinn disagrees that the law would be unconstitutional.
But Quinn said the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the type of restrictions he is proposing.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 5:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Claypool gets two big endorsements
Next Post: Guv to appeal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
But what if it is a labor union wanting to protest at a funeral? Didn’t the general assembly give them carte blanche to protest whereever they wanted, up to and including places where it may endanger the lives of others?
I like it when the Illinois government uses its power to smite people and organizations that it doesn’t like, and reward those that it does.
Comment by Get Real Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 7:33 am
I think that Quinn’s idea is long over due. The families of those who have died deserve time to mourn their loss without an idiot brigade.
Comment by leigh Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 8:52 am
Funerals are for the living. It’s for friends and family members to say good-bye not politics. If the funeral is taking place on private property, and haven’t laws limiting where pro-life groups passed constitutional muster? Maybe that’s Quinn’s model?
Comment by Greg Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 10:25 am
If Lt. Gov. Quinn’s proposal has constitutional flaws in it, we could always go to Plan B, which while cruder, is constituionally sound.
Plan B is of course, to have the Governor grant a pardon to anyone who beats the living hell out of any such protesters. Whoever is Governor has the power under the Illinois Constitution to grant pardons; that’s pretty clear and absolute. If you had a few of our veterans (who were trained with our tax dollars to be able to kill) show these SOB protesters that their training hasn’t been forgotten, this problem will go away REAL quickly.
Now I admit this would be a crude response option, perhaps barbaric to some. But issuing a pardon is within the rights and powers of whoever is Governor (whether or not it is the right or proper thing to do to grant such pardons, or announcing in advance that such pardons would be given, is a matter of political opinon, not one of constitutionality).
Comment by Randall Sherman Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 10:46 am
Pat Quinn shows again that he has real heart. He may be niave at times, but Pat is sincere, and his role as an official government agent at our troop’s funerals is admirable. We need to listen to him on this issue. He has been to more funerals than most of us ever will.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 11:28 am
I think this is a great idea, although I don’t think it’s constitutional. I also think that if President Bush, or a Congressional Republican had proposed this, the liberals and Democrats would be having 12 different kinds of hissy fits over the repression of free speech
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 11:46 am
Randall -
What else would you like to propose? Beating people up who are not like you? Sorry, but your ulta-right wing Republican initimidation tactics may work on a national level with your buddy the Prez in DC (and his buddies in Bagdad), but I will *not* stand for violence like you are proposing.
Please take your aggression elsewhere.
Comment by Concerned Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 11:51 am
Funerals are for family. Keep politics, protests and other stuff out of it. Randall’s idea may be crude, but I have several large cousins who would take personal displeasure at some idiot deciding a family funeral is a good time for a protest. It would not be a smart move.
Comment by Zatoichi Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 1:56 pm
I’ve been thinking about this very subject all weekend. I am all for protecting a person/groups right to freedom of speech, yet the people who protest at fallen soldiers’ funerals seem to be less than human. If such a law was found to be Constitutional, how far would it reach? If it’s Constitutional to ban a person/group from protesting at a funeral, wouldnt you also be able to extend that to a ban on persons/groups protesting an abortion?
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 3:41 pm
I think Guv Lite is probably right on this one. The Supreme Court has always upheld “reasonable” restrictions on the time, place and manner of demonstrations. E.g. you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, and you can’t hold your demonstration at midnight in a residential zone with flashing lights and bullhorns. I think a strong argument could be made for even stricter prohibitions on demonstrations at or near funerals. Where you run into problems is where you try to restrict the CONTENT of the demonstrations– e.g. no “anti-gay” demonstrations or no “peace” or “Anti-American” demonstrations. If the restrictions are “blanket” restrictions subject to certain times and places, I think they will be upheld.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 5:34 pm