US Judge Rules Constitution Does not Gurantee Travel within States

Really? The Mayor NEEDS to tell people to leave when there's a huge ass hurricane bearing down on the city? Not in my house. Around here when the # is about to hit the fan, we step out from in front of the fan. We don't wait for someone to tell us to move.

On to the safety issue. I will take the word of the individuals trained to handle public safety ove that of someone with no known credentials (who wasn't even on the scene and can only speak from second hand information) any day.

As for these police officers shooting people, not true. That was a different bridge and different officers and they were all indicted for their misuse of power. NOLA Brdige shootings. Oh wait, I know the illuminati stepped in to send these cops to trial in an effort to distract from the NWO's bid for power by stopping people from travelling into an unsafe area.

Come on. You seem like an intelligent individual. Use your brain for something other than finding conspiracies where there are none. In regards to the Mayor and all his plans - he was an incompetant buffoon. Luckily the consituents in his voting area were stupid enough to re-elect him. Guess some people really do get what they desereve.

shots, I've read in several articles about this case, that there was nothing on the other side of the bridge. There were no services or supplies on the other side of the bridge. So the police were keeping them from going into what they considered a worse situation, because at least in the Superdome they had food/water/shelter, whereas on the other side of the bridge, we don't know what they would have had, if anything.

Originally posted by Mr No One
As for these police officers shooting people, not true. That was a different bridge and different officers and they were all indicted for their misuse of power.

Um.. no you are wrong. What you are referring to is the incident at Danziger Bridge. This is the Crescent City Connection. Those officers most definitely did have rifles drawn, and those officers most definitely were firing warning shots at the people.

So much for second hand info.

This sounds like a case that could go all the way to the Supreme Court to me.

While the Constitution may not specifically state that right, the Supreme Court often recognizes assumed rights derived from the constellation of rights guaranteed by it. I think they could overturn this (or the Circuit Court of Appeals).

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by Mr No One
As for these police officers shooting people, not true. That was a different bridge and different officers and they were all indicted for their misuse of power.

Um.. no you are wrong. What you are referring to is the incident at Danziger Bridge. This is the Crescent City Connection. Those officers most definitely did have rifles drawn, and those officers most definitely were firing warning shots at the people.

So much for second hand info.

Warning shots are not firing AT people. Thank you for the first hand account that proves what I am talking about. These officers were not shooting people. That happened on another bridge. These officers were preventing people from flooding (pardon the pun) into an area that could not help them and would have been adversly impacted by their presence.

While it might sound odd to say that the Constitution protects the right of people to travel between states, but says nothing of travel within states, I can think of one reason why the Supreme Court might be hesitant to expand the interstate right to an intrastate one, and it has nothing to do with safety.

The U.S. has, from its very founding, recognized certain rights as belonging to certain layers of government. The Federal government has powers reserved to it, the states' governments have certain powers reserved to them. In fact, the 10th Amendment goes so far as to say that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It might be the opinion of the Court that. by ruling that the Constitution in some way guarantees intrastate travel, the Court would be infringing the states' rights to conduct and regulate their internal affairs. Not being a mind reader (I have enough trouble reading my own! ), I don't know if that's what they are thinking, but it could be.

Originally posted by niteboy82
Apparently it was safe, as I passed these people in my car while leaving.

I do not think these are one and the same people I watched it on TV and I saw no cars going by they stopped everything you have to be mistaken on that part, however, if you are correct on the road being clear that boosts my suspicion on the matter. I feel there is more to the story I just do not know each and every detail al I can do is suspect.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This sounds like a case that could go all the way to the Supreme Court to me.

I think you are right. I honestly cannot see one reason why they could refuse them travel if what has been said is true. If the roads were clear they had no LEGAL cause to stop them.

This is unless of course we do not know some facts that are being hidden from us.

Originally posted by shots
I do not think these are one and the same people I watched it on TV and I saw no cars going by they stopped everything you have to be mistaken on that part, however, if you are correct on the road being clear that boosts my suspicion on the matter. I feel there is more to the story I just do not know each and every detail al I can do is suspect.

Shots, I left 3 days after the storm, at about 11am. I used the onramp in to 90 West (which would be the bridge in question) near Magazine Street and had absolutely no difficulty. What made me feel absolutely sickened is that up to this moment I had no idea of most of what was going on in the city (no clue of the flooding, for example). Those people on the bridge are somewhat haunting now, knowing I should have packed my car with as many people as I could have, but hindsight is 20/20. Traffic was also free flowing on the incoming traffic, as there were many different parishes(counties) sending in their boats to help, of course at this point I think civilian traffic was cut off, as there was a checkpoint on Highway 90 at the I-310 intersection.

I was not even noticed in my Mazda 626 driving across though.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
shots, I've read in several articles about this case, that there was nothing on the other side of the bridge.

If you check the posts in between you will find we have others claiming what you are saying is incorrect. Do you by chance have links that confirm what you say is correct? I will also challenge the others making their claims so we can find the real truth here. You may be right or perhaps they are right but one thing is sure everyone does not agree on the area being clear.

Originally posted by shots
If you check the posts in between you will find we have others claiming what you are saying is incorrect. Do you by chance have links that confirm what you say is correct? I will also challenge the others making their claims so we can find the real truth here. You may be right or perhaps they are right but one thing is sure everyone does not agree on the area being clear.

The other side of the bridge was able to maintain people living in their homes (though without some utilities) for the entire duration. I consider that to be a much better situation. Algiers Point for example had their own little militia built up. Of course businesses were not up and running immediately, but I do without a doubt believe that an evacuation staging point in Gretna was much more possible than what was going on at the Superdome. The Superdome had water around it.

Why were people at the Convention Center, away from the Superdome if the Superdome was the best spot? I cannot speak from experience (thank the heavens for that), but the Superdom according to people I personally know was absolute hell.

I find it funny that the Judge made the comment: "there is no right to travel within a state guaranteed by the Constitution."

Is U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon related somehow to AG Gonzales?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
source

Life - the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual

Liberty - the quality or state of being free

Pursuit of Happiness - a state of well-being and contentment


Does Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon honestly believe that all American citizens are not entitled to the above mentioned unalienable rights? :shk:

Regardless of the situation, these human attributes should have been upheld first and foremost.

The incident in question happened when those who were at the Convention Center decided to leave the city on foot by way of the Crescent City Connection (Mississippi River Bridge) into Jefferson Parish.

The police closed the bridge in an effort to protect the outlying parishes from the rampant crime that had allegedly engulfed New Orleans after the hurricane.

The question is whether the Gretna Police had deprived these individuals of their constitutional rights by closing the bridge and preventing their departure.

The decision will surely be appealed, but the deadline for a class-action suit would be an academic matter and not a judicial matter, regardless of whether any constitutional violation took place.


[edit on 2007/4/5 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Mr No One
Really? The Mayor NEEDS to tell people to leave when there's a huge ass hurricane bearing down on the city?

No not at all but standard procedure for most mayors is to order an evacuation which most except him did.

Come on. You seem like an intelligent individual. Use your brain for something other than finding conspiracies where there are none.

Interesting thought, no conspiracies within hurricanes Katrina and others. I do believe you are in the minority there.

But do not stop now you are batting 100%

my boy is on probation and cannot leave the state, he got introuble taking a minor over state lines.

joking, but the above are examples of state boundry lines

Good find shots. :up;

Methinks this case is VERY important - and well worth taking to the Supreme Court.

When the pandemic hits - which it will - quarantine will be imposed.

I'm betting quarantine restrictions will NOT apply to corporate trade, but individuals will be held against their will.

...The situation occurring with bird flu is somewhat similar - it's well known that trade is responsible for spreading bird flu, but an open admission would affect corporate profits, so the flu keeps spreading...

Originally posted by Infoholic
Does Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon honestly believe that all American citizens are not entitled to the above mentioned unalienable rights? :shk:

Regardless of the situation, these human attributes should have been upheld first and foremost.

I think that clouds the question. Is there a right to travel between states without a tariff? Yes. But that is a far different question from whether one can travel wherever they want. I can't drive onto a military base. When the police have cordoned off a crime scene, I can't traipse around inside because it is disruptive. I see this as a necessary safety precaution that needed to be taken; I think one would be hard pressed to find the right that would be more important given the exigencies in this case. Maybe one person or another could and should have planned better so that people would have had escape routes. But it seems reasonable that the city and state was well within its power to make this decision in the moment.

Now, can a city bar someone from entering their city? Most likely not, not without justification. Again, I think here given the chaos there was sufficient justification. But a blanket statement of rights ignores the fact that those rights have historically been viewed through a lens of reasonableness--as well as they should be. It's the old "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater argument." If giving full force to one person's rights infringes on everyone else's rights, then no one wins in the end.

Originally posted by soficrow
Good find shots. :up;

Methinks this case is VERY important - and well worth taking to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps so, just to have a ruling on it. But the procedural problems seem fatal to this case.

When the pandemic hits - which it will - quarantine will be imposed..

Perhaps so. Why is that not a reasonable thing to do in that scenario?

I'm betting quarantine restrictions will NOT apply to corporate trade, but individuals will be held against their will.

This doesn't make sense. Obviously people would be needed to drive the trucks, and they would be quarantined. Furthermore, keeping commerce alive would be essential in any disaster; how else would people get the necessities of life?

That comment belies cynicism towards business, on the assumption that the government is so blindly elitist and pro-business that in a pandemic scenario all business will be propped up while everyone else will be forced into a police state arrangement. That's a fine view to have, but it doesn't create a cogent argument. How can business run if people are quarantined? How do they buy products? Make money? Any economy during a quarantine would be a pretty poor one.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by Togetic]

They didn't have the basics at the Superdome or the Convention Center. People died waiting for water and other basics.

The Gretna police did shoot at the people trying to flee New Orleans. When the people who tried to flee set up camp with what little food/water they had, the police ran them off and confiscated their supplies. This was documented fact.

I did a report for my graduate class last year on how the government both set up the disaster by cutting funding for levy maintenance in the years leading up to Katrina and how the citizens had their rights trampled on. The whole tavesty made me very angry and I remember much of the details vividly.

I hope the Supreme Court hears this case.

Originally posted by shots
If you check the posts in between you will find we have others claiming what you are saying is incorrect. Do you by chance have links that confirm what you say is correct? I will also challenge the others making their claims so we can find the real truth here. You may be right or perhaps they are right but one thing is sure everyone does not agree on the area being clear.

If you bothered to read the post that I put back on page one, then you would see where I linked to an article that mentioned just that. Glad to see people bother to read these replies. But just for those too lazy to read, or too lazy to go back a page, here it is again.

The Dickersons were among hundreds who tried to flee New Orleans for safety on Sept. 1, but said that police from suburban Gretna confronted them and forced them to turn around. Police later said they blocked the evacuees because there were no supplies or services for them on the other side of the river.

news.aol.com...