And with this decision all faith in SCOTUS dies

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Ghost1958, May 30, 2020.

  1. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,425
    5,829
    113
    That right there is sig line material!
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  2. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    579
    818
    93
    As with the exercise of any liberty, of course, one's speaking of TWO things in every instance. (Or, should.)

    The exercising.
    And the impact on others.

    No escaping the impact and others' right to claim "foul" when their rights and liberties get trod upon. It's how it works. With all the BOR protections, where "exercise" can inflict damages upon others.
     

  3. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    891
    484
    63
    I guess my researcher on Smallpox & Washington should contact
    Mary V. Thompson
    Research Historian
    Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens
    https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/smallpox/

    should talk to your researcher on her material
    Brenda Thacker

    hummm...
     
  4. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,815
    4,030
    113
    One can legally yell fire . No law against it.
    By doing so though one takes responsibility for the results of that action.
    If nothing occurs, no rush outside resulting in injuries etc etc , yelling the word fire is a non event.

    The actual limits on free speech came about by
    1. Gov fear of its citizens organizing against it when it becomes tyranical.
    2. Political correctness. Hate speech and the like.

    None of which has any constitutional basis to exist.
     
  5. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,815
    4,030
    113
    There is two.
    Gov discovers the virus.
    Gov makes recommendations as to what it THINKS needs to be done.

    Gov shuts down the things IT owns. Or says it does since gov actually owns nothing.

    Individuals have a choice.
    Listen to gov and hide at home.
    Or continue with their lives.
    Private business can shut down or not.
    Open to the public businesses can close or not.

    Churches can choose to close or not and their congregation can choose to come to not.

    Gov can legitimately make a case for quarantining sick individuals.

    It has no constitutional authority to do anything more.

    Any other approach is tyranny.

    Liberty isnt free. Never has been.

    Neither is it safe. Never been that either.

    Folks had the right to react to this scam as they saw fit. If hiding at home as some seriously ill, elderly etc likely should , then they aren't taking a risk by choice.

    Folks who continue on with their lives and didnt stay home , close down etc as they had a right to do without gov intervention, accept the risk.

    That is the liberty this nation was founded on.

    It's not free or safe. And shouldn't be.

    Sadly we as a nation will no longer stand up for that liberty nor support those who do . Trading liberty for a false saftey.
     
    G66enigma likes this.
  6. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,752
    2,222
    113
    Besides that it is nonsense, and the Constitution provides for necessary emergency measures —I bet if a hard core congregation spread covid in your neighborhood, you would post a mile long scroll on how your constitutional rights were violated.
     
    W.T. Sherman likes this.
  7. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,910
    4,719
    113
    SCOTUS keeps kicking the 10 cases down the road.
     
  8. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,815
    4,030
    113
    Nope. Hope you didnt bet much cause you just lost it .

    There are churches holding full services here. Have been for a while some in spite of lil Andy's decrees. Couple of claimed cases supposedly popped up in one but nobody seems to know who they are.

    The cases my county has seen has mostly been hospital workers taking all the gov precautions. But few of them. And the few all said about the same as a regular chest cold.

    My own church isnt though I think it should be. Our pastor has cancer though so I can understand why hes leery.

    Would you care to actually cite something in the constitution that states the BOR may be violated???

    Or like so many just say something is in it that isnt and leave it at that.
    The BOR and constitution is all about limiting gov and bolstering individual liberty . Not governmental stealing of it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  9. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,752
    2,222
    113
    You make a typical mistake by believing the BOR is the whole Constitution. Article 1.8 says congress shall pass all necessary and proper laws. The Public Health act deals specifically with contagious disease. The WH and the states have ample powers to constrain individual liberties on many such occasions. You still have the right to yell what you think, and be assured it's going nowhere. That ship sailed some 200 years ago. I think we're done here.
     
    W.T. Sherman likes this.
  10. jigs-n-fixture

    jigs-n-fixture Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    3,145
    3,811
    113
    Bullpucky, the founding father were instituting health quarantines.

    The first health quarantine, which banned all public gatherings was put in place by George Washington to control yellow fever when Philadelphia was the capital. So, yes the founding fathers were would be in favor of the quarantines and bans on public gatherings.
     
    alsaqr, Mercator and W.T. Sherman like this.
  11. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,815
    4,030
    113
    Yep congress can pass laws . But nowhere in the document or even anh writings does it say those laws may violate the rights guaranteed in the BOR.
    Your better than that herring

    That congress is a known screwup even back then is why no act of congress is binding on any state if it does not wish to honor it. Unlike your claim no less than 4 SCOTUS rulings starting back in the 1800s and recently in the 80s I think have held that to be so.

    Congress passed the insurrection act in the 1800s. But all it does is give the President a right to horn in without being asked . And in essence to declare war on any state that chooses to ignore that act. Though I doubt with all the bluster that will happen.
     
    G66enigma likes this.
  12. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    891
    484
    63
    you have combined apples [constitution] with pears [public law health] and kumquats...and come up with nothing viable.

    Article 1, section 8 is a commerce clause, quote:
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; unquote

    PHA, enacted in 1942 and is coded USC 42, chapter 6A:
    Section 319 authorizes the Secretary to determine that a public health emergency exists. This determination triggers emergency powers that permit the federal government to engage in activities such as assisting state and local governments, suspending or modify certain legal requirements, and expending available funds to address the public health emergency.

    A determination by the HHS Secretary under Section 319 that a public health emergency exists activates the Secretary’s emergency powers to provide states with resources and personnel to respond to the emergency and to waive or modify certain legal requirements.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-6A
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  13. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    891
    484
    63
    Hajj, the Holy Pilgrimage to Mecca is the largest gathering in the world with Muslim faithful pilgrims from all over the world and it's close quarters in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would have assured the world's countries would have most definitely been severely contaminated by this virus if allowed to proceed.
    [​IMG]

    Israel's PM facilitated the country's response to the virus since there was no ruling coalition, therefore no government!
     
    W.T. Sherman likes this.
  14. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    891
    484
    63
    forgive me and this query but where in the world did you discern there was any mention about,

    'Infliction of injury or harm upon another'​

    in my post discussing the second clause about the constitutional concept of the government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- religion?
     
  15. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    579
    818
    93
    I was commenting on the general nature of the justification for others having rights and defending them, in the thread's example of exercising this liberty. Not any comment you'd made, as such, despite using your own comment as the jumping-off point for the thought.

    At bottom, issue is "your right to make a fist and swing it ends at someone else's nose." As with playing loud music that goes "too far" in forcing everyone for a mile to listen to it as well; or, as with gathering in large numbers in tight spaces during a deadly epidemic that strongly risks transmission and injury or death to others.

    Wasn't about what you said (I noted the "injury" part). Was about the inherent limit of liberties as to when the community has every right to jump in and guard people from infliction of harm upon others, when liberties are exercised.
     
    Nmwabbit likes this.
  16. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    579
    818
    93
    There's the risk an individual runs as an individual.

    Then there's the risk of inflicting upon others that an individual runs, in a bad epidemic.

    On the former, I agree nobody has any cause to jump on a person to force them to be careful, be absent, wear a mask, stand over there, etc.

    On the latter, though, that's where everyone else's liberties need protecting as well. The problem is, in the implementation. (The forcible implementation going way too far, IMO.) But the fact remains that at some point in the balance of the exercise of liberty and protection of others' rights, there's a dividing line where the community (State) does indeed have a responsibility to stand up for those rights.

    The ugly nature of this is, this virus isn't an all-or-nothing thing, and it has the nasty fact of asymptomatic transmissibility over a variable incubation period. Tough to have a hard-and-fast guideline (or law), then, that affords legitimate protection of others' rights while perfectly respecting everyone's right to go out and about. Again, the problematic aspect is about finding a way to have only certain limits and restrictions, yet avoiding iron-clad constraints. Yes, most states' implementations have gone way overboard.

    If it were merely liberty exercising being spoken of, it'd be an academic discussion and there wouldn't be much beyond that other than the core point: liberty being destroyed. But the dead are piling up in some spots ... and in those spots (NYC downtown, for example), there's all the reason in the world to have certain constraints on gathering, to have heavy testing and precautions, to have contact tracing, to have forcible quarantine if shown to have it, etc. Agreed, that if someone can't be shown to have any risky symptom, it's hard to claim there's any cause to dump on that person. Again, states have gone wildly overboard on their "precautions" ... and liberty has been taken out into the field and left for dead, as a result.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  17. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    579
    818
    93
    Again, two things exist in the example.

    Right to be religious, to worship, to gather with others to pray or hear worship. Which has no exceptions in the protections.

    And inflicting contagion upon another, even many others. Which no contagious person (contagious with a reasonably deadly pathogen) has any right to inflict upon others. (The infectious, not everyone, not merely the suspect.)

    Two completely different things. One, a right, a constitutionally-protected one, and one that has zero to do with the act of spreading contagion. One can indeed be done, by right; the other can and should be controlled within reason and limits, appropriately identifying, targeting and sequestering the contagious.

    The sticky conundrum we find ourselves in, now, is that without good testing and tracing protocols it's all but impossible to implement anything like the right and just approach. The methods went way too far, IMO, and few were justified. Though, lacking the testing/tracing, it's hard to see another alternative for protection of what's turned out to be a non-trivial percentage of the world's population.

    Would love to see the broad-strokes approach abolished and buried. Would much prefer to see a heavily-targeted approach, going after all proven infections and centers of contagion. Would like to see everyone else left the hell alone, as they should be. As is technically required by our form of governance and strictures against overstep by those hired to help.

    Assuming it's fairly certain broad swaths of "healthcare" wouldn't be pushed to collapse, I have a hard time seeing how next time around there'd be any lawful or constitutional justification for forcible shutdown of the nation's economy. Not resting on the assumption everyone's a threat merely by being alive and present.
     
  18. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    891
    484
    63
    it does where?
     
  19. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    891
    484
    63
    G66enigma, sorry truth be told, the harsh fact of life is humans are born to die, nothing more or nothing less been that way for eternity!

    we lose 455K to malaria in africa every year, we lose 45K to auto accidents, we lose countless of people to stupid things every year.

    this country did those in nursing homes a tremendous injustice by ignoring their plight as they lay dying - alone i might add - across this country.

    let's see yet again...get tested - positive, go self quarantine, not a bit of treatment...who cares about testing let alone tracing...there is ABSOLUTELY NO TREATMENT for what end?

    the shock and awe tactics are still being shoved out as gospel...first the symptoms - everyone who is affected with pollutants shows those symptoms, then it is spread by coughing and touching, then on counters, now it is being spread on the floors by asymptomatic carriers...really...keep the myth going!

    recognize that what we are doing is just crying wolf without a bloody way to treat the issue cuz we sure do not have any way of stop it.
     
  20. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    579
    818
    93
    Myth?

    Plenty of contagious pathogens survive on surfaces, survive in exhaled aerosols, etc. And various pathogens don't have overt, unmissable signs of contagion until further on in the incubation period.

    In order for this to be a myth, there'd have to be an all-encompassing global plot to muzzle every researcher, medical lab staffer and other "worthy" student of where this virus is found and how long it's found there. I suppose anything's possible, but that degree of error-free coordination is all but impossible to implement. So: myth?? Hard to believe, when so many in disparate labs around the world have basically confirmed much the same things, related to the epidemiology of this thing.

    Indeed, early on it was found here, found there, found in the air, found for N number of hours or days on this or that surface ... The data kept coming in, as it was found, tested and corroborated by others around the world. What's your point? It's all hogwash, all of it? Or, more likely, little was known (given its "novel" status) early on, and more was found out as experience was gained with it?