Just in case anyone else wants to add their name to the list of people who would like to see some consequences for a Missouri state senator who wrote "I hope Trump is assassinated". She did not apologize for 4 days and refuses to step down. I can only imagine her reaction had a white Missouri state senator written the exact same statement re Obama while he was president. I'm sure she'd be fine with it, right? Because she isn't a hypocrite with double standards, and/or doesn't think she's special...

PS She got 94% of the vote in the last election... her constituents apparently think she's great...

https://www.change.org/p/ann-wagner-the-removal-and-arrest-of-missouri-state-senator-maria-chappelle-nadal

Republican Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard and Minority Leader Gina Walsh both rescinded the lawmaker’s nine committee assignments,
with Richard saying in a brief statement: “I support the decision of Senate Minority Leader Gina Walsh to remove Sen. Chappelle-Nadal from all of
her Senate committees. I am also removing her from all appointments under my authority.”

Chappelle took three days to issue an official apology for her comments.

“President Trump, I apologize to you and your family,” Chappelle-Nadal said at the Wellspring Church in Ferguson, Mo. “I also apologize to all the
people in Missouri. And I also apologize to my colleagues in the Missouri legislature for the mistake that I made.”

She added, “I made a mistake. And I’m owning up to it.”

Missouri’s Republican governor and lt. governor, however, have called for her resignation.

https://www.sarahpalin.com/2017/08/22/missouri-senator-wished-trumps-assassination-just-got-booted/?ref=Ads

She even started a website to get constituents to support her and oppose her resignation!

On that website, she posted this non-apology quote:

"Out of anger and frustration, I said something that could have been reframed.
And I refuse to shy away from the hypocrisy and chaos our country is enduring
under Trump."
- Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal

https://www.istandwithmaria.com

I will not comment on the makeup of her constituency.

Lieutenant Governor calls for special session to expel Sen. Nadal over Trump assassination quip

http://fox2now.com/2017/08/22/senate-may-expel-over-trump-assassination-quip/

 Missouri Senate leaders are looking into ousting Sen. Maria Chapelle-Nadal from office because of a Facebook comment she made about hoping President Donald Trump gets assassinated.

Tuesday afternoon Missouri Lieutenant Governor Mike Parson sent a  letter to members of the Missouri Senate calling for a special session in conjunction the veto session in September to expel Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal from office.

Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard and Majority Leader Mike Kehoe both said Friday that they want Chapelle-Nadal to resign but are researching the expulsion process if she doesn’t quit.

While I am completely fine with having her removed from office by voters, arresting her would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

While I am completely fine with having her removed from office by voters, arresting her would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

The First Amendment doesn't protect calls for violence.

And before you start blathering about "she only wished he would be assassinated", there are plenty of nut jobs out there who would take that comment as a call to take action.  She'd be just a guilty as if she said, "I want someone to kill him."

The First Amendment doesn't protect calls for violence.

And before you start blathering about "she only wished he would be assassinated", there are plenty of nut jobs out there who would take that comment as a call to take action.  She'd be just a guilty as if she said, "I want someone to kill him."

She isn't responsible for what some nut job decides to interpret her comment as. A threat has to be taken for what is is, not for what someone could twist it to mean.

Wanting to jail her for saying she hopes he is assassinated is walking on the 1st amendment protections of free speech and quite frankly it worries me that you are so willing to restrict that right when it serves your political interests.

She isn't responsible for what some nut job decides to interpret her comment as. A threat has to be taken for what is is, not for what someone could twist it to mean.

Wanting to jail her for saying she hopes he is assassinated is walking on the 1st amendment protections of free speech and quite frankly it worries me that you are so willing to restrict that right when it serves your political interests.

Good to see you're "worried" about something.

Chappelle-Nadal is a sworn public employee who has sworn an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and that document contains the procedures requisite for removing a President from office. Nowhere in that document is "assassination" listed as one of the possible procedures. (She didn't say "I hope Trump is impeached and convicted by the Senate".) Thus she has violated her oath of office for expressing the desire that the President be removed from office by unconstitutional means. She is expressing a desire that an unconstitutional unlawful means be employed to accomplish a political end. That and she's an idiot (see her record of other "questionable" statements). I know, there is no law against being an idiot. We see proof of that here all the time. 

Can we likewise assume that you believe the "terroristic threatening" laws are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds? Thus if an ordinary person (not an elected official sworn to uphold the Constitution) made a statement wishing harm upon someone (not an elected official) that person is free to say whatever they want under First Amendment protections? As an example, some sick twisted demented mental case says "I hope EEF is made to watch as his family is brutally tortured and murdered and then the same happens to him", you'd be just fine with that and dissuade any legal actions against the person because he's just exercising his First Amendment rights?

I found out that since 1969, falsely yelling "Fire" in a theater or other venue is not against the law.  The SCOTUS decision in 1969 said "for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own. "

Would what she said fall under that ruling?  I have no opinion as courts often interpret laws different from what I believe it to say, i.e. 2A.

I found out that since 1969, falsely yelling "Fire" in a theater or other venue is not against the law.  The SCOTUS decision in 1969 said "for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own. "

Would what she said fall under that ruling?  I have no opinion as courts often interpret laws different from what I believe it to say, i.e. 2A.

Assassination is a specific criminal action.

I found out that since 1969, falsely yelling "Fire" in a theater or other venue is not against the law.  The SCOTUS decision in 1969 said "for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own. "

Would what she said fall under that ruling?  I have no opinion as courts often interpret laws different from what I believe it to say, i.e. 2A.

Well, just last week Nancy Pelosi said that you can't yell "wolf" in a crowded theater... that is not protected by the First Amendment. I wish I was kidding about that, or making it up, or that it was fake news. Unfortunately, it's recorded and available for all to see just how intelligent and non-dementiaed our U.S. Senate House minority leader [Edit: How could I confuse Pelosi with Chucky Schumer?!] is (I wonder just how long the list of words (animals only?) is that she believes you can't yell in a crowded theater?) :



Here is a brief write up on the quote, the actual law (as you mention), and just how ignorant (or dementiaed) Pelosi is: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450809/yelling-wolf-crowded-theater-nancy-pelosi-flunks-constitutional-law

Third, the quote is wrong. She’s obviously referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous statement in Schenck v. United States that “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Fire. Wolf. Whatever. It’s not important compared to the next point below.

Fourth, anyone who quotes Schenck is quoting bad law. In fact, it’s one of the most “odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history.” [Link in original: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/] The court upheld the Espionage Act conviction of the secretary of the Socialist Party of America for writing and distributing a pamphlet opposing the draft during World War I. Schenck could never be sent to jail for this conduct today.

The proper standard is outlined in Brandenburg v. Ohio, and that case is completely silent regarding the wolf threat. Under Brandenburg, speakers can advocate violence even in front of an armed crowd unless their speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added). Finally, while the law obviously prohibits any member of the alt-right or any other group from engaging in violent acts, the Constitution does not permit the state to shut down an event simply because other people threaten the speaker. That’s an extreme form of heckler’s veto, and law enforcement is obligated to protect speakers, not silence controversial speech.

In other words, don’t ask Nancy Pelosi about the First Amendment. She has no idea what it means.

Good to see you're "worried" about something.

Chappelle-Nadal is a sworn public employee who has sworn an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and that document contains the procedures requisite for removing a President from office. Nowhere in that document is "assassination" listed as one of the possible procedures. (She didn't say "I hope Trump is impeached and convicted by the Senate".) Thus she has violated her oath of office for expressing the desire that the President be removed from office by unconstitutional means. She is expressing a desire that an unconstitutional unlawful means be employed to accomplish a political end. That and she's an idiot (see her record of other "questionable" statements). I know, there is no law against being an idiot. We see proof of that here all the time. 

Can we likewise assume that you believe the "terroristic threatening" laws are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds? Thus if an ordinary person (not an elected official sworn to uphold the Constitution) made a statement wishing harm upon someone (not an elected official) that person is free to say whatever they want under First Amendment protections? As an example, some sick twisted demented mental case says "I hope EEF is made to watch as his family is brutally tortured and murdered and then the same happens to him", you'd be just fine with that and dissuade any legal actions against the person because he's just exercising his First Amendment rights?

Like I said, she should be removed from office.

And like I said, even despicable comments that hope for harm are protected speech. I might not be "fine" with someone saying such a thing to me but I recognize that it wouldn't amount to a criminal act. I might say something back to him which would get him to cross the line and then call the police though

If you saw a cop standing around and then a man walking by tells the cop he hopes the cop gets run over by a bus, do you think the cop should be allowed to arrest this man?