Well, horse-puckey. What should I do?

[BillyDkid]

How on earth is this not a freedom of speech/first amendment issue? If this is not an infringement of your Constitutional rights I have no idea what is. This, my friend, is where the rubber hits the road.

 

[Nefertiti]

It's more than 100 days from the Minnesota primary though, so it is not within the regulations.

 

[MsDoodahs]

BLS, it's up to you how you respond to this.

I wanted to let you know that regardless of what you decide, I'm with ya.

 

[deborak]

I haven't read all the other comments, but if it was me, I'd just get creative and see how many more letters I could generate from City Hall with other options: how about a scarecrow in a Ron Paul t-shirt standing in your yard? Ron Paul balloons tied to the fence? whirligigs and windsocks? etc. Read the ordinance and figure out exactly what contingency they haven't thought of and go that route.

Keep those bureaucrats pushing paper so they aren't doing more detrimental things to your community.

 

[BillyDkid]

It's more than 100 days from the Minnesota primary though, so it is not within the regulations.

I wonder, can you be ticketed for talking about Ron Paul in public? I'm sorry, I don't care what the regulations are - it's an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.

 

[allyinoh]

I know you guys are looking to push this to get some media attention, but really if you just want to keep the signs up, call city hall, tell them its a political sign and should be exempt, if they say no, then ask to see the ordinance, if the ordinance is unclear, ask for a clarification from the city attorney, if the ordinance includes political signage, send something to the city attorney stating that you think by the constitution of the US, or MN that it should be exempt as 1st amendment protected speech, along with some of that stuff from the ACLU/Florida case. Most likely the city will back down and not make an issue of it...

I don't really think the one and only reason he is pushing it is to get media attention. Why would you even suggest that? Just curious.

 

[ItsTime]

Replace it with a banner of the constitution!

 

[MsDoodahs]

Maybe a banner with the First Amendment printed out in full alongside it?

 

[Ninja Homer]

They didn't say that he needed to take the banner down because it was for a campaign, they said it needed to be taken down because it is a banner, and they have an ordinance against banners in residential areas.

 

[BLS]

I'm fighting this all day long. I have a dentists appointment and then I'm calling the ACLU and the local media.

 

[Craig_R]

I didnt read every post in this thread, however. If you hold color of law on the property I suggest you apply for a land patent. once you have secured ownership of the land on which the sign is placed they have NO legal standing on any "ordinance". Plus, if they decide to tresspass onto your property you can sue the crap out of them.

just to top it off I'd erect hundreds of Ron Paul banners on my property just to piss them off

 

[ManicMondayMomma]

There was a supreme court ruling that religious and political signs are exempt from these kinds of regulations. I don't know the specifics, but the guys at gunssavelife.com have tackled these issues with their signs, and they could give you the info or at least some direction. good luck!

 

[BLS]

Thanks for the input guys/gals!

I will keep you posted.

 

[kylejack]

I'm fighting this all day long. I have a dentists appointment and then I'm calling the ACLU and the local media.

I have half a mind to call the lady myself and ask her why she's enforcing an ordinance that violates the First Amendment. The only time this kind of stuff is valid is when the person agreed to a home-owner's association agreement when they bought the house.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Any update on this yet today?

 

[BLS]

Any update on this yet today?

Yeah, I sent out a mass media email last night. Got one phone call from the local radio station. They said they called the City and got clarity of the issue and gave me the number of the city manager to call.

I was like....that's awfully nice...but that's not why I emailed....but I let it go.

Then the city called me and I mentioned it was unconstitutional to 'censor' Political signs because of the time restrictions. She was pretty blown away and suggested she would have the city manager call me.

He called and we spoke (all was very cordial and calm).
I told him my position, and cited a few sources of ACLU issues and the supreme court ruling that all signs must be mandated in a similar fashion.

He agreed that the code interpretation was NOT the issue, but more the legality.
He said he was going to discuss with the City Attorney and get back to me.

I asked..if I don't take it down today, will I be fined. She said no, we'd only fine you if you didn't respond after 8 or so attempts to contact me.

So, for now...I don't know much...but the City Manager was very understanding and willing to look into it deeper.

 

[ItsTime]

AKA you just got the run around. This is how they handle it when they want you to do something. They make it look like they "tried" everything but there is nothing you can do so take it down.

Yeah, I sent out a mass media email last night. Got one phone call from the local radio station. They said they called the City and got clarity of the issue and gave me the number of the city manager to call.

I was like....that's awfully nice...but that's not why I emailed....but I let it go.

Then the city called me and I mentioned it was unconstitutional to 'censor' Political signs because of the time restrictions. She was pretty blown away and suggested she would have the city manager call me.

He called and we spoke (all was very cordial and calm).
I told him my position, and cited a few sources of ACLU issues and the supreme court ruling that all signs must be mandated in a similar fashion.

He agreed that the code interpretation was NOT the issue, but more the legality.
He said he was going to discuss with the City Attorney and get back to me.

I asked..if I don't take it down today, will I be fined. She said no, we'd only fine you if you didn't respond after 8 or so attempts to contact me.

So, for now...I don't know much...but the City Manager was very understanding and willing to look into it deeper.

 

[kylejack]

Tell them you contacted the Constitution and the Constitution gave you the go-ahead and that the sign won't be coming down. Then tell them if they have a problem, they'll have to take it up with the Constitution.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

You should still call the ACLU or a Lawyer. Don't discuss anything without representation.

 

[Flirple]

I wrote:

Originally Posted by Flirple
I don't see how this is a first amendment issue. The first amendment says "congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about a state or a city making a law abridging freedom of speech. That would be up to your state constitution as I see it. This is local tyranny not federal.

And you replied:

Look up the 14th amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It prevents states from violating your Constitutional Rights. Otherwise all of them would have been trampled on long ago without consequences by local and state governments.

Hi trispear, I think that is my point. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you freedom of speech, religion, etc. The first amendment forbids the federal government from making laws abridging such freedoms. This is not a first amendment issue because we are talking about state or city laws, not federal laws. I really think people severely misunderstand the 1st amendment.

I am certainly no constitutional scholar but the only way I can see this having anything to do with the constitution is maybe you could make a 9th amendment argument? I don't see how the 14th amendment applies here either. Again, I am no constitutional scholar so someone please tell me where I am mistaken about this.