Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home…
— “Mrs. Robinson“
Old habits die hard. As I posted today’s Virtual Front Page, featuring a blurb about the Occupy Columbia situation at the State House, I glanced at the time. It was just past 6 p.m. So how did I know there weren’t new arrests taking place as I was posting? Well, I didn’t.
Dang.
I didn’t know, and none of the more obvious websites were telling me anything. Thestate.com only had a minimal update since the night before. The movement’s (I almost said “the organization’s,” but that wouldn’t be accurate) website didn’t tell me.
Dang again.
The trouble is, I don’t have any reporters to go check and see what’s happening. That’s what I’ve done most of my life when I had a question that was holding things up — send somebody to find out and let me know.
So you know who had to schlep his tired bones down to the State House. Yup. And that’s harder than it sounds, because parking is scarce with Vista Lights going on.
So I parked in one of the “working media” spots, and started rehearsing my explanation that I was, too, working media in case of challenge, when I realized I was walking across the State House grounds after 6 p.m. With impunity. As I moved toward the Confederate monument, I saw a group of people in the gloaming near the flag — on the part of the grounds people were arrested for being on last night. One looked like Walid Hakim. Another figure separated from the group and headed my way. “Hey, Brad.” It was Jack Kuenzie from WIS.
I said aloud to Jack what I was thinking: What makes being on the grounds after 6 a crime? Nobody was challenging us, although two BPS officers were standing at the steps about 25 yards away. Jack said he’d seen plenty of people cross the area unmolested — joggers, people walking their pets and the like. And, he said, Walid — “You mean Walid, the non-leader leader?” and Jack nodded — had been walking about on the grounds without being touched.
Most of the Occupiers were across the street, it having been informally decided that the “grounds” extended to the curb on the south side of Gervais. But Walid, his lawyer, and four or five others — some media — were still on the proscribed side.
Jack speculated that maybe carrying a sign was what made you a trespasser (and that’s what the19 were arrested on last night, trespassing — or at least Walid was, which is all I can say for sure, since no Occupier is allowed to speak for others). Well, if so, then this really is a First Amendment issue — which I had doubted.
The way I look at it, the duly constituted authorities are within their rights — or perhaps I should say, within their responsibilities — to say you can’t be in a particular place at a particular time. That is not a First Amendment issue, as long as you can peaceably assemble somewhere nearby.
But if some people are allowed on the grounds at that time, what’s going on. In fact, even the people arrested last night were now allowed to be where they were forbidden to be at the same time 24 hours earlier. At least, Walid was. Was it that he wasn’t chanting? If so, First Amendment again.
Was it that there were no sleeping bags or tarps or tents? All of those were gone before 6 p.m. last night, too. So what was the difference? After I walked over myself to chat with Walid, who had by that time reached the sidewalk in front of the Christmas tree, he said he had wished one of the officers a good evening while on the grounds, and nothing happened.
But you know what? That’s not the biggest legal question I have in all of this. The biggest is, What gave Nikki Haley the authority to order the protesters off the grounds at ALL, whatever the stipulations?
Sen. Harvey Peeler had petitioned the governor as a member of the Budget and Control Board, because the Division of General Services supposedly had jurisdiction. Well, Nikki Haley is but one of five members of that board. I’m unaware of any statutory or constitutional authorization that enables her to unilaterally tell a division of the B&C what to do. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; I’m just unaware of it.
Finally, last time I looked, the Department of Public Safety was not a Cabinet agency, and the governor has no direct authority over it. Yes, the officers in that agency traditionally act like they work for her (and many likely think they do), but unless my memory is mistaken — which is possible — they don’t. Not technically.
Anyway, Walid says his day in court is Dec. 15, now that he’s out of jail (after about 6 or 7 hours in last night) on a $470 bond. It will be interesting to hear some of these issues aired.
Related Posts
So by parking in the “working media” spot, you’re kind of the equivalent to the guy with a hangnail parking in a handicap spot.
“What gave [GOVERNOR] Nikki Haley the authority to order the protesters off the grounds at ALL, whatever the stipulations?”
Brad, try approaching the answer this way:
What would have given Vinnie Sheheen the authority to order the protesters off the grounds at ALL, whatever the stipulations?
In my opinion, based upon reading many of your previous posts, that question would never be raised because Vinnie is a lawyer and you would automatically assume he knows what he is doing!
His name is Vincent. (Does he call you “Juanito?”) And yes, in the event that Vincent stepped out onto such dubious ground, I’d have had the same question.
Meanwhile, you may be leaping to a wrong conclusion. Do you think I have a strong objection to the occupation ending? I don’t. I’m at best ambivalent about it. I have some sympathy for what Nikki was trying to accomplish. What I’m saying is that I strongly doubt she had the authority. And as she herself said, our guidepost here should be the rule of law.
Someone wondered what the Occupy Columbia movement accomplished.
For one thing, they obtained a reaction by the governor of the state of SC. People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions and for lobbyists for similar attention and less results.
Second, the governor has hastily ventured into quasi-legal territory in PRESUMING she has powers more properly shared by the other four members of the Budget and Control Board — and the elected senators and representatives of our Legislature. We imagine Treasurer Curtis Loftis ought to have more to say about this, unless he folds his tents and just sulks like Achilles before the gates of Troy.
Third, the Occupy Columbia people have reaffirmed the importance of our First Amendment rights. Those rights belong to me, you, and to Brad, and to everyone who comments intelligently and collegially. It does not matter whether our toilet habits are in accordance with others’ views.
Fourth, Haley’s irresponsible and politically impetuous actions have emphasized the issues presented by Occupy Columbia — i.e., that a financially and politically powerful minority are oppressing the fortunes of a struggling minority.
Fifth, they have shown how unimpressive the Haley administration is in terms of political maturity and inability to cope with issues — other than with bromides, platitudes, and — now — raw, naked police power.
Sixth, kudos to the men and women of law enforcement who acted with professional and personal courtesy to enforce an immature, politically unwise and self-aggrandizing knee-jerk decision of Nikki Haley (helped by lobbyist Wesley Donahue serving as Senator Harvey Peeler’s letter writer and Rep. Rick Quinn’s unproven urination assertations that Haley scatologically turned into toilet paper).
All this said, let’s be honest — Nikki Haley cannot afford too many of these type situations. All this is due to the fact her senior staff’s average age is barely beyond the minimum age to buy intoxicating spirits while their average salaries are three times the aveage SC household.
Just goes to show you do not always get what you pay for — unless you are willing to be arrested for trying to make a point.
I second what Brad said. By the way, Juan, would you have a problem referring to the governor as “Nimrata” (her actual first name)?
The State reported (Noelle Phillips, who continues to impress me!) that CPD declined to assist in Wednesday night’s unlawful arrests.
If you need a local stringer for the in-town beat, let me know next time….
“Vinnie” has been Sen. Sheheen’s nickname at least since his grade school days, folks. Two of the senator’s own sons have similarly legitimate nicknames, as well. Can you guess what Joseph and Anthony’s nicknames are?
As to Governor Haley, I had assumed Nikki was her nickname, as well.
Why would I possibly care if anyone, including Steve Gordy, wants to call S.C.’s Governor by her given name? Have at it.
HINT: Vincent is not a very common southern name, Brad. You may eat your admonition when his advisors call him “Vinnie” on 2014 bumper stickers, assuming he is still the Dem’s best hope after the Obama debacles, and that he would still wish to run against one of the country’s top, private job recruiters.
By the way, when the public gets final statistics on how much $$$$ Harpootlian’s lawsuits will have cost state taxpayers, I don’t think it will help any lawyer win votes, either. Just a thought.
@Tired –
“For one thing, they obtained a reaction by the governor of the state of SC. ”
So being told to “Get off my lawn” is what they were striving for?
So should we be calling you “Bradley” instead of “Brad”?
@ Steven Haley –“Get off my lawn”
Sorry, but a compelling argument is being built that it is not HER lawn
People should be called by the name they wish to be called. If it is a nickname, great. If not…
Then there are people who are not even using their real names, so….
As the chief executive for the state, I’d say she has more of a say on what goes on on the State House grounds as does a group of people squatting on it. She should have waited at least through the weekend, then we’d see how many of these morons would make it through the 30 degree nights.
I’ve known him for quite a while myself and have always respected him by calling him “Vincent.” I know most of his family well, and they as well call him “Vincent.”
But feel free. I guess.
Steven, “As the chief executive for the state, I’d say she has more of a say on what goes on on the State House grounds as does a group of people squatting on it.” Are you serious in your responses? If you are, I would seriously question your judgment on anything.
It’s been plenty cold already, as well as drenchingly wet, during their stay. I salute them!
Why should the chief executive have any more say than you or I on who can be on the people’s State House grounds? She’s not the Decider.
j & Kathryn – I think this has to do more with your personal opinion of Haley than it does on the subject of the Occupy movement assembling without a permit. Why didn’t they apply for a permit like everyone else who assembles on the State House grounds? If you don’t play by the rules, you suffer the consequences. What did the Occupy squatters accomplish other than damaging the grass? What was their goal or mission, did they achieve it or were they even close to achieving it? If they’re this dedicated to their belief, can’t they just move locations and stay in the fight?
Does Harris Pastides have any more of a say on what goes on on the USC Horseshoe than you or I? It’s a public institution, he’s the CEO. Would people be allowed to squat on the Horseshoe?
Steven, you lack a knowledgeable view relative to the state statute and the constitution. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Haley. She’s not the CEO of the State House grounds and USC abides by different rules. If you look at the USC-D situation you might realize the consequences of this type of enforcement action is that it just motivates the aggrieved even more. Whatever you may think of their objective, it has nothing to do with their rights to the 1st Amendment, as long as they don’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government.
Wes Donahue concocted that letter for Peeler and they weren’t “allowed to squat” as you say. “Others are supporting the protests, though, providing the occupiers with food, water and clothing. In fact, a Port-O-John was recently provided for the group’s use after a member was ALLEGED to have urinated on a State House monument.”
Before her enforcement speech and the professional approach of the police, “Hakim says he recently convinced Columbia, S.C. Mayor Steve Benjamin to get a ban on tents at the S.C. State House rescinded two weeks ago.”
I guess riding by the capitol every day just doesn’t give one a good perspective on which to base their biased, one-sided opinion.
As one observer noted, “If those were Tea Party members carrying signs and protesting, Haley would not only pitch their tents for them she would also furnish Charmin for the folks using the State House monument.”
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2011/11/15/1116-mike-luckovich-cartoon-occupy-movement/
Mike puts it graphically into perspective for Stevo.
That’s a poor comparison, Steven. Harris Pastides has a direct chain of command through his facilities manager to campus security.
As Governor, Nikki Haley can not constitutionally exert authority over state property except as a member of the Budget & Control Board, and then only with the concurrence of two of the other four members.
I see supporters of the Occupy group is going to press the situation and protest after 6:00 tonight. I’m interested to see how that’s going to turn out. It all sounds a little (make that a lot) childish to me. Maybe they’ll even stomp their feet and hold their breath. Actually if pepper spray is used on them they might do both.
I remember Pastides telling the story of how there were many students camped out on the Horseshoe (I can’t recall the occasion–it was probably sports-related, but I have no doubt that if it were politically motivated, the result would have been the same), and he and Patricia went over and hung out with them for a while.
The Horseshoe isn’t the seat of any government. I suppose Occupy Osborne would be a similar thing if one were a student, but USC isn’t a “government” that citizens have enumerated rights to peaceably assemble to petition for redress.
Yes, and Nick and others say…
It’s long been one of the ironies that the president of USC has greater executive responsibility, at least in the direct sense, than the governor of the state.
Ever since the flag issue stepped up in about 1994, legislators have been particularly careful to limit the governor’s power to make decisions regarding the State House grounds. Back in ’94, Campbell might have been able to take down the flag on his own — so lawmakers put it into law that the flag must fly (originally the one on the dome, now the other one), thereby making sure that only they can lower it.
I’m not positive of how the power is divided, but basically I think authority over the State House itself resides with the State House committee of the Legislature, and control of the grounds resides with General Services, a division of Budget and Control.
That’s the way Peeler described it in his letter, and I believe that’s correct.
The state’s code of laws do clarify who is in charge of the capitol grounds.
The mayor and chief of police for Columbia were within their rights to refuse to remove the occupiers from the capitol grounds.
However, did the police chief act outside the boundries of his authority when he did the following: “..Before her enforcement speech and the professional approach of the police, “Hakim says he recently convinced Columbia, S.C. Mayor Steve Benjamin to get a ban on tents at the S.C. State House rescinded two weeks ago.”
If the police chief has the right to refuse to arrest occupiers, how is it that he can rescind a ban on tents on the state grounds?
Seems there is a bit of confusion on who has the authority to do what, when, where, and to who.
Sorry, meant to say mayor, not police chief in reference to removal of ban on tents, etc.
I had a response for j, but it appears Brad didn’t agree with it so he killed it. It’s a shame that some here who’s views he agree with are allowed to have their condesending comments toward other posters published, but if he disagrees with you, well your wasting your time responding. Maybe I should organize an Occupy Warthen and go camp out on the sidewalk outside his house.
Steven, I keep thinking you’re beginning to get it. You’ll post something that violates civility policy, and when I don’t approve it, you try saying in a way that does pass muster, and I approve it. That seems like progress.
But then you say something like this. I have no idea which comment you refer to, but I’ll tell you without looking what was wrong with it, because this is almost always what is wrong — instead of just expressing your views on an issue, you said something disparaging about somebody else on this blog. That’s what always gets you, time and again.
Oh, and by the way, when someone else writes something in a tone that is similar to your problem comments, they don’t get approved either. Just so you’ll know what I’m talking about, I’ll quote from another comment I did not approve today: “I purely want to post that Steven is obviously mentally deficient, since he seems unable to come up with anything that isn’t a dig at somebody else, but I won’t.”
Well, he didn’t, but only because I wouldn’t allow it. And I wouldn’t quote it now, except that you insist upon imagining motives and causes other than the ones that are obvious: When you are civil, you get approved.
“j: Steven, you lack a knowledgeable view relative to the state statute and the constitution.”
That’s just the latest condescending comment directed at me from j. Over the past couple weeks there have been others from this same person. If you had a search feature on this blog all you’d have to do is search for “assume” to see my response to their stupidity.
“you said something disparaging about somebody else on this blog. That’s what always gets you, time and again.”
That’s what I’m complaining about, it’s one rule for me and a different rule for everyone else that has the same views as you. j., Mab, Kathryn, bud, Phillip, Michael… just to name a few.
“I purely want to post that Steven is obviously mentally deficient, since he seems unable to come up with anything that isn’t a dig at somebody else, but I won’t.”
So they (j.) want to post that they think I’m an idiot, but since that would be a dig at someone else they (j.) won’t. What??? Didn’t they(j.) just do that?
Anybody else want to point out to Steven the difference between “you lack a knowledgeable view relative to the state statute,” and “stupidity?”
And yeah, Steven, that other comment WAS over the top, which is why I suppressed it, and only brought it up because you think you’re being picked on. When somebody DOES try to pick on you, I don’t allow it. Even when you started it.
Yeah, I allow a lot of stuff that is borderline — otherwise, your comments would get disapproved far more often. I try to allow everyone leeway, and only deep-six the comments that are CLEARLY over the line. Such as ones that say “stupidity,” or “mentally deficient” — both of which I allowed here only for the sake of instruction.
Yesterday’s anyone? Some things are best settled over a beer…
I don’t know whether “smart” people read this blog, but I’m pretty sure “stupid” people do not. Name-callng never gets anyone anywhere in life – and yet we all forget that; at least upon occasion.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
An’ ev’n devotion!
Robert Burns
1786 “To a Louse”
I appear to have offended Steven (based upon a response I did not allow). And you know, I can see how he might see condescension in the following: “Anybody else want to point out to Steven the difference between ‘you lack a knowledgeable view relative to the state statute,’ and ‘stupidity?'”
And all I can tell him is that it was not intended. I was sincerely asking someone else — since Steven doesn’t seem to trust my judgment as moderator — to explain it instead of me.
It’s a weird minefield, trying to foster civility. There can easily be a tone of condescension in anyone, including me, who presumes to speak for civility. It’s easy to sound like a pompous jerk. But I do try not to.
Why has Steven and his boorish manners hijacked yet another thread? Yawn.
@SusanG
I tried to find a “thumbs up” icon for your comment, however since there is not one, maybe this will do. 🙂
“Teach me to feel another’s woe,
To hide the fault I see;
That mercy I to others show,
That mercy show to me.”
~ Alexander Pope
“Remember unto me, O my God, for good, all that I have [tried to do for Steven].”
~ Nehemiah 5:19
###
Steven — don’t forget that I tried to be nice to you (once or twice).
“That’s what I’m complaining about, it’s one rule for me and a different rule for everyone else that has the same views as you. j., Mab, Kathryn, bud, Phillip, Michael… just to name a few.”
This laundry list of commenters neither has the same views as Brad, most of the time, nor the same views as each other much of the time. (I admit to agreeing with Phillip 99.9% of the time, if not 100%.)
@Kathryn – I’m sure everyone on the list will agree with you to disagree with me.
Stevie — it’s likely I would only ever agree with Kathryn about the weather. And even that can get political. What? You didn’t know The Weather Channel is political?
I believe the record will show that I actually have agreed with you on more than one occasion.
despite your best efforts….
A word to the wise is normally deficient.
“Stevie”, Mabie… really????
j says: “A word to the wise is normally deficient.”
I’ll put this the best way I can… “Huh???”
Steven, What can I say? If you don’t get it I’m sorry. Hope you have a good Thanksgiving season.
Bah humbug…