This should be labeled liberal judges, lawyers, and occupiers, but it's not. They believe they are above the law. when the law stands in their way, they don't try to have it changed, they "interpret" it in a new ridiculous manner.
The Judges and lawyers:
The best example off the top of my head is "separation of church and state". Judges and lawyers have used this term for years, to defend the atheists and christian haters. (which ironically, the atheists are pushing for representation among military chaplains. Which would put them subject to their own devices.)
The only part of the constitution that mentions religion is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Now, tell me where it says seperation of church and state...? NOWHERE! They misquote the constitution to please their agenda. This is the most grotesque misinterpretation, it literally disgusts me. We are requiring courthouses to remove the ten commandments, cities to remove crosses from water towers, pulling funding from battered womens shelters that encourage bible study! All of what the judges and lawyers are doing is unconstitutional!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Did congress make a law requiring the posting of the ten commandments in courthouses? Did they make a law requiring crosses be put upon water towers? Did they make a law requiring the funding of christian womens shelters? NOOOOO!!!!
Yes I know they get the phrase from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, but even there they take it GROSSLY out of context. They use this to remove personal freedom of decoration in public buildings, however when jefferson was PRESIDENT he attended his church meetings in the house of representatives!
Jeffersons actions make it abundantly clear what he meant by "a wall of seperation between church and state." This is a one way wall (because god is not subject to the walls of men), a wall that the state could not, and should not ever attempt to control religious beliefs of its people. However, since the government is by the people, their beliefs would inherently be adapted by the republic. God would shine through into the state, but the state would not impose on any mans free will to worship or not worship god.
Freedom of speech or expression and right to assembly have been called upon frequently by the occupiers, when asked to defend their occupation. Are they defending the constitution? Or twisting it for their gain?
The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
By shutting down these encampments have the protestors lost their right to voice their opinion? Nope. Have they been afforded the right to peaceably assemble? Yes. Have they remained peaceful? No. Therefore they are no longer protected by the first amendment.
They don't have the right to assemble, they have the right to peaceably assemble. The heinous crimes committed within these encampments and their inability to drive away the crime makes this movement illegal. there have been rapes, assaults of citizens, assaults of police officers, sexual assaults, harassment of passers by, etc... this is not a peaceful assembly.
The occupiers, lawyers, and judges are twisting the words to fit their agendas. They don't even have the decency to try for an amendment because they cannot stand failure.
A full copy of the constitution can be found here.