Biden violates the US Constitution on his first day

[W_Heisenberg]

A government that can deprive the life, liberty, or property of its citizens without due process of law are the very same governments that makes any citizen that happens to disagree with them to disappear without a trace. What you are effectively arguing is that government has the authority to declare its entire population to be criminals, without presenting any evidence, and then punishing them accordingly.

Why do you think the individual right to due process of law exists in the first place? It exists specifically to prevent government from issuing blanket mandates. Government is required to prove their case on an individual by individual basis beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence in a court of law. That includes masking up, social distancing, quarantines, or anything else where government seeks to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property.

Those who waive their rights, don't deserve them.

As an American citizen, you have an unlimited number of rights and a few very simple responsibilities. One of those few responsibilities now is to wear a piece of cloth over your nose and mouth when around others. This is mostly a social obligation, as there are few ways the government, either local or federal, can penalize you. With respect to the exec. order, there are hard limits on what the federal government can do, the practical effect of this is that government contractors are going to get booted from job sites or have their contracts voided if they don't comply. With respect to how the general population interacts with the federal government, the practical effect is that before you enter a government building you will have to put on your mask.

My advice to Trump supporters and mask-deniers is quite simple: put on your mask, save some lives, and stop being assholes:

Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7902(c) of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

www.whitehouse.gov

Accordingly, to protect the Federal workforce and individuals interacting with the Federal workforce, and to ensure the continuity of Government services and activities, on-duty or on-site Federal employees, on-site Federal contractors, and other individuals in Federal buildings and on Federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures, as provided in CDC guidelines.

Sec. 2. Immediate Action Regarding Federal Employees, Contractors, Buildings, and Lands. (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to require compliance with CDC guidelines with respect to wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, and other public health measures by: on-duty or on-site Federal employees; on-site Federal contractors; and all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands.

(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the President’s Management Council and the Coordinator of the COVID-19 Response and Counselor to the President (COVID-19 Response Coordinator), shall promptly issue guidance to assist heads of agencies with implementation of this section.

(c) Heads of agencies shall promptly consult, as appropriate, with State, local, Tribal, and territorial government officials, Federal employees, Federal employee unions, Federal contractors, and any other interested parties concerning the implementation of this section.

(d) Heads of agencies may make categorical or case-by-case exceptions in implementing subsection (a) of this section to the extent that doing so is necessary or required by law, and consistent with applicable law. If heads of agencies make such exceptions, they shall require appropriate alternative safeguards, such as additional physical distancing measures, additional testing, or reconfiguration of workspace, consistent with applicable law. Heads of agencies shall document all exceptions in writing.

(e) Heads of agencies shall review their existing authorities and, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations and resources, seek to provide masks to individuals in Federal buildings when needed.

(f) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator shall coordinate the implementation of this section. Heads of the agencies listed in 31 U.S.C. 901(b) shall update the COVID-19 Response Coordinator on their progress in implementing this section, including any categorical exceptions established under subsection (d) of this section, within 7 days of the date of this order and regularly thereafter. Heads of agencies are encouraged to bring to the attention of the COVID-19 Response Coordinator any questions regarding the scope or implementation of this section.

 

[MaryP]

By mandating masks on federal lands Biden has just violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He is also encouraging the States to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of the Democrat-controlled sh*thole States already have.

Considering that Alaska is ranked #1 for federal land. With the federal government owning 61.79% of Alaska’s total land, or just shy of 224 million acres, I'm on federal lands all the time. I never a wear a mask, and I'm always armed for bear. Good luck trying to enforce that unconstitutional Executive Order in Alaska. Naturally, this was expected from leftist filth.

You're going to shoot a human for telling you to put on a mask? Is that what you're saying?
Seems a little excessive.

 

[MaryP]

I suppose having to wear pants and underpants on federal lands is a due process violation then too.

They make you wear underpants? Those wardens have quite the job, don't they?

 

[Glitch]

Is waiting for people to be infected before doing something seem smart to you?

Are you more concerned about your freedom than the lives of people during a crisis not seen in a hundred years?

Basically what I'm saying is can we use a little common sense?

Who said anything about waiting for people to be infected?

All I'm demanding is that government abide by the US Constitution. They do not get to throw out the Supreme Law of the Land and do whatever they please just because they concoct an emergency.

Common sense would indicate that you would fight for your individual liberty, not throw it away because politicians are afraid of the flu. That is precisely what the anti-American left want, to deprive every American of their constitutionally protected rights. Leftist freaks have already used this so-called pandemic excuse to silence speech, violate Americans religious belief, prevent freedom of association, and violate our individual right to due process.

When they start rounding up Americans who disagree with the agenda of anti-American leftist filth and make them disappear (because there is no due process) I suppose you will consider that "common sense" as well.

 

[Glitch]

You can always move.

400,000 plus covid deaths in the USA and you won't wear a mask BUT you have a gun in case a bear comes near you ? lols

Maybe people should consider bringing in the arming of bears so they can protect themselves from covid carrying humans that refuse to wear masks.

You have that backwards. It is those who are deliberately violating the US Constitution who need to move, not I. After they have served an extended sentence in prison, naturally. When government is deliberately violating the law, it is not I who needs to be moving. It is the anti-American leftist filth who need to be afraid.

 

[rickc]

Frankly you are a moron if you are out in public without a mask.

Here in tallahassee FL mask have been mandatory for months. Most people are wearing them.

Only stupid trumpers supporting their failure of a president want to protest mask wearing. What do you expect from a bunch of illiterate deplorables

 

[GolfingChef]

I still have not figured out how setting rules for being in Federally owned buildings is violating the Constitution. There have always been rules for entering such buildings, so I guess every president that allowed those to stand has been violating the Constitution

 

[roguenuke]

During the Winter I regularly hunt for ptarmigan and spruce grouse on federal lands just south of Denali National Park. I also fish on federal lands during the Summer.

There are no state-wide mandates in Alaska. The Governor has asked Alaskans to restrict our travel and to wear masks, and that is fine. Asking makes it voluntary and therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause. Only one city in Alaska has mandated wearing masks - Anchorage. They got rid of that Mayor in December, and now they are trying to get rid of the leftist Acting Mayor.

Nowhere else, outside of Anchorage, is closed down in Alaska. All our businesses and schools have remained open, and very few are wearing masks.

This ridiculous belief that you cannot be mandated to wear masks because of the Constitution is not going to fly legally. GO ahead and challenge it, and see how fast it gets shot down.

 

[Glitch]

As an American citizen, you have an unlimited number of rights and a few very simple responsibilities. One of those few responsibilities now is to wear a piece of cloth over your nose and mouth when around others. This is mostly a social obligation, as there are few ways the government, either local or federal, can penalize you.

Sorry, but no American has the responsibility to be a government slave. You must be thinking of Canada, the UK, or some other sh*thole nation that does not acknowledge the rights of its citizens.

In the US the government has the obligation, as well as the legal requirement, to uphold the constitutionally protected individual rights of its citizens, not step all over those rights because they want to incite fear and illegally assume powers that they do not have.

With respect to the exec. order, there are hard limits on what the federal government can do, the practical effect of this is that government contractors are going to get booted from job sites or have their contracts voided if they don't comply. With respect to how the general population interacts with the federal government, the practical effect is that before you enter a government building you will have to put on your mask.

It isn't the government buildings that concern me, although that is also illegal because it also violates the due process clause. In Alaska more than 60% of the State is actually "federal lands." I hunt, fish, and drive through federal lands all the time, and I never wear a mask. Nor do I ever intend to wear a mask.

Unlike the majority of idiots, I don't listen to the propaganda of leftist freaks who have been doing nothing but deliberately inciting fear since COVID-19 began. My advice to you is to wake up and smell the coffee. You've been brainwashed by the anti-American leftist filth. The number of deaths from COVID-19 is less than 20% of what is actually being reported. The reality is that Wuhan Flu of 2020 is no worse than the Hong Kong Flu of 1969, and we did not intentionally destroy our economy, wear masks, deprive people of their religious beliefs, prevent people from associating with whomever they pleased, whenever they pleased, or violate anyone's individual right to due process. Instead, we put a man on the moon in July of 1969 and held the Woodstock concert in New York in August.

My advice is to get over your media-induced fear and stand up for your constitutionally protected rights, while you still can.

 

[roguenuke]

Hmm... is that also an unenforceable suggestion created by EO?

Whether something is made a rule by EO or Congress passing a law about it does not change its constitutionality unless the two clash, in which case the Constitution mandates that the law itself takes precedent and makes the EO unenforceable. However, again, that is separate from it being Constitutional or not. The President can control what occurs on federal land, federal property so long as it does not actually violate a law already in place or what the Constitution actually says, which would apply to laws too. So it cannot be considered unconstitutional to require masks by EO but completely okay to do so via an Act passed through Congress. Since we know an Act through Congress requiring masks on federal property would be constitutional, then so too is an EO doing so.

 

[GolfingChef]

In Alaska more than 60% of the State is actually "federal lands." I hunt, fish, and drive through federal lands all the time, and I never wear a mask. Nor do I ever intend to wear a mask.

And nothing in this EO even comes close to suggesting, let alone mandating, you have to wear a mask while you do those things.

You have your panties in a knot over a fantasy

 

[Glitch]

You're going to shoot a human for telling you to put on a mask? Is that what you're saying?
Seems a little excessive.

Considering that I have witnessed masked leftist filth violently attacking police, people, and property across the nation for the last year, if I witness anyone in a mask approaching me they had better be very careful indeed, because I will defend myself.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Whether something is made a rule by EO or Congress passing a law about it does not change its constitutionality unless the two clash, in which case the Constitution mandates that the law itself takes precedent and makes the EO unenforceable. However, again, that is separate from it being Constitutional or not. The President can control what occurs on federal land, federal property so long as it does not actually violate a law already in place or what the Constitution actually says, which would apply to laws too. So it cannot be considered unconstitutional to require masks by EO but completely okay to do so via an Act passed through Congress. Since we know an Act through Congress requiring masks on federal property would be constitutional, then so too is an EO doing so.

Using that ‘logic’ the POTUS could add additional federal rules serving as law (legislate?) at will - so long as they do conflict with existing federal laws or constitutional federal powers.

What does the constitution “actually say” about taxing wealth or owning/selling an IC powered vehicle? We do know that the federal government has the powers of taxation and the regulation of commerce (including the ability to ban the possession or selling of a given product).

 

[GolfingChef]

Using that ‘logic’ the POTUS could add additional federal rules serving as law (legislate?) at will - so long as they do conflict with existing federal laws or constitutional federal powers.

Isnt this more or less what has been happening for at least the last 12 plus years?

 

[roguenuke]

Using that ‘logic’ the POTUS could add additional federal rules serving as law (legislate?) at will - so long as they do conflict with existing federal laws or constitutional federal powers.

What does the constitution “actually say” about taxing wealth or owning/selling an IC powered vehicle? We do know that the federal government has the powers of taxation and the regulation of commerce (including the ability to ban the possession or selling of a given product).

None of this reply has anything to do with what I posted. The original contention was that this EO was unconstitutional because it was not an act of Congress. Nothing about this EO makes it unconstitutional simply by not being an act of Congress.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Isnt this more or less what has been happening for at least the last 12 plus years?

Yep, so let’s just do away with congress and let the POTUS carry out the will of the people.

 

[Glitch]

And nothing in this EO even comes close to suggesting, let alone mandating, you have to wear a mask while you do those things.

You have your panties in a knot over a fantasy

Then you have very serious reading comprehension issues since the EO applies to everyone on all federal lands, not just federal employees in federal buildings. You clearly need to read it again.

 

[ttwtt78640]

None of this reply has anything to do with what I posted. The original contention was that this EO was unconstitutional because it was not an act of Congress. Nothing about this EO makes it unconstitutional simply by not being an act of Congress.

I never agreed with that OP contention.

 

[GolfingChef]

Then you have very serious reading comprehension issues since the EO applies to everyone on all federal lands, not just federal employees in federal buildings. You clearly need to read it again.

Yes, this EO applies to everyone on all federal lands, not just federal employees in federal buildings. And this EO states that the CDC guidelines for mask wearing shall be followed by everyone on all federal lands, not just federal employees in federal buildings. If you would read the EO you would see that it refers to the CDC guidelines 12 times.

The CDC guidelines do not include wearing a mask when you are outside alone.

 

[Glitch]

None of this reply has anything to do with what I posted. The original contention was that this EO was unconstitutional because it was not an act of Congress. Nothing about this EO makes it unconstitutional simply by not being an act of Congress.

You are mistaken. The original contention is that the EO violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. An act by Congress would not change that fact. If Congress were to enact mandatory masking on federal lands, like the EO, they would be equally guilty of violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What part of government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law are you not able to grasp?

It makes absolutely no difference whether Congress enacts a law, or the President issues an EO - they would both be in violation of the US Constitution.

 

[NotreDame]

A government that can deprive the life, liberty, or property of its citizens without due process of law are the very same governments that makes any citizen that happens to disagree with them to disappear without a trace. What you are effectively arguing is that government has the authority to declare its entire population to be criminals, without presenting any evidence, and then punishing them accordingly.

Why do you think the individual right to due process of law exists in the first place? It exists specifically to prevent government from issuing blanket mandates. Government is required to prove their case on an individual by individual basis beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence in a court of law. That includes masking up, social distancing, quarantines, or anything else where government seeks to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property.

Those who waive their rights, don't deserve them.

You may be alarmed too much. This is federal land, land owned by the federal government. The government is essentially creating house rules for its own house. Just as people, in regulating private property, can limit access to the property, limit hours, require shoes, shirt, and clothes to come onto the propert, so too can the federal government impose similar requirements for those who want to come onto federal property. Imposition of a mask requirement to come onto federal property is within the government’s power to regulate its own property.


You assume a liberty interest to not wear a mask on federal property. Yet, the federal government regulating its property, and has the effect of limiting your liberties in this context, isn’t a violation of due process.

 

[GolfingChef]

You may be alarmed too much. This is federal land, land owned by the federal government. The government is essentially creating house rules for its own house. Just as people, in regulating private property, can limit access to the property, limit hours, require shoes, shirt, and clothes to come onto the propert, so too can the federal government impose similar requirements for those who want to come onto federal property. Imposition of a mask requirement to come onto federal property is within the government’s power to regulate its own property.


You assume a liberty interest to not wear a mask on federal property. Yet, the federal government regulating its property, and has the effect of limiting your liberties in this context, isn’t a violation of due process.

Not to mention nothing in the EO says one must wear a mask while outside alone fishing or hunting or doing anything else

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It isn't the government buildings that concern me, although that is also illegal because it also violates the due process clause.

Let's simplify things for a minute.

Let's say you enter a government building or property. Let's say a government employee asks you to put your mask on or you cannot enter the premises.

Please present your argument as to how you think this violates the due process clause?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

In Alaska more than 60% of the State is actually "federal lands." I hunt, fish, and drive through federal lands all the time, and I never wear a mask. Nor do I ever intend to wear a mask.

Why would the federal government mandate mask-wearing on federal lands in Alaska if it's not necessary?

Why wouldn't the federal government just say as long as you're more than 6 feet apart, or as long as there X many people per sq feet., mask-wearing is not required.

The executive order isn't very specific.

 

[Lursa]

Let's simplify things for a minute.

Let's say you enter a government building or property. Let's say a government employee asks you to put your mask on or you cannot enter the premises.

Please present your argument as to how you think this violates the due process clause?

Once again, there is legal recourse to enforce it.

Exactly. If you *dont, that invokes trespass laws. Which are enforceable.

*leave when asked by LE or federal employees.

No due process involved or required.


I notice especially that none of the gun carriers even acknowledge this. That's probably because they are familiar with the principle and realize it's accurate.