Denny wrote:
The other issue is the presidents movements usurping public spaces and
disrupting commerce and blocking the public's constitutionally
protected freedom of movement (and the VP, and the Speaker, ad
nauseum)...
The day will come when someone will lose a contract, or some such
event, because the unannounced movements of the president and men in
dark suits blocking off public spaces. A lawsuit will result and the
government will lose - as it is a clear issue that no one has the
constitutional right to interrupt the citizenry's access to public
spaces, roads, parks, the airspace, etc... We already tossed one King
off the continent over these types of issues...

I have no desire to see the president injured, or even threatened, but
when it comes to violating my rights versus his 'possible' injury
because he has chosen to go out in public, he will have to take his
chances just like I do when I step off my porch every morning...

denny

Security around the President is hardly a new thing.

But while sovereign immunity has been reduced much over the years national
security issues is one place where it still carries some weight and I see no
court deciding that protection of the President should be secondary to some
commercial loss.