Biden violates the US Constitution on his first day

[Glitch]

You keep saying that. I have no idea why. Why are you afraid the government is going to come and abduct you? Do you realize how crazy you sound?

I keep saying it because you keep failing to grasp the significance of our constitutionally protected individual right to due process under the law. You repeatedly cite laws that all require due process, which you fail to comprehend, and then ask what is the difference.

That tells me that you do not understand the meaning of due process. Because if you did you would know that without due process government can do whatever it pleases to its citizens. If they don't like you stirring up trouble, they can just claim you committed some crime and lock you away forever with no trial. It is a common tactic among leftist freaks, like those currently occupying the White House.

They still practice these tactics in Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, and other leftist sh*thole nations because they do not have due process of law. That is what you are advocating for in the US by supporting the deliberate violation of our constitutionally protected rights.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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.

If you actually read the order, agency heads are only to require masks to be worn inside federal buildings. Everywhere is at the discretion of the local land managers.

As to your argument, does a seatbelt requirement on roadways "bypass due process"? If not, then how would requiring masks indoors during a pandemic be any different?

 

[Lursa]

More leftist propaganda. Divide that number by at least five or six and you will be in the ballpark. The Wuhan Flu of 2020 has been no worse than the Hong Kong Flu of 1969, and we didn't intentionally destroy our economy, or have fascist leftists insisting everyone wear masks in 1969, because it wasn't an election year. If you want to buy into all the leftist propaganda out of the fear they have been inciting for the last year, that is your right. However, you do not have the right to drag anyone else into your BS fantasy world. If you want to panic, you can panic by yourself.

I already proved you were wrong about this in another thread...you remember...the 'proof' you tried to pass off was a web page that distinctly said at the top that it didnt include the data for CV19 in 2020.

You never did explain to me where the extra ~200,000-300,000 dead people came from.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I keep saying it because you keep failing to grasp the significance of our constitutionally protected individual right to due process under the law. You repeatedly cite laws that all require due process, which you fail to comprehend, and then ask what is the difference.

Okay, so I'll go back to the point I made previously. If you accept the fact that you have to abide by jaywalking laws, and public nuisance laws, public nudity laws, and sanitary laws like not spitting on a sidewalk, why do you not accept mask-wearing laws?

That tells me that you do not understand the meaning of due process

Well, we should treat the refusal to not wear masks the same way we treat jaywalking, and spitting on the sidewalk, and public nudity, etc. What's wrong with that, and how is due process missing if we insist people wear masks and then ticket them if they refuse, possibly fining them, and yes going to trial if they want, the same way we treat traffic violations.

Because if you did you would know that without due process government can do whatever it pleases to its citizens.

So if you accept traffic rules and laws such as jaywalking restrictions, and speed limits, and traffic lights, then why do you not accept mask-wearing laws?

If they don't like you stirring up trouble, they can just claim you committed some crime and lock you away forever with no trial.

Why would the government lock you away forever for not wearing a mask if we treat the same as we treat jaywalking?

It is a common tactic among leftist freaks, like those currently occupying the White House.

They still practice these tactics in Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea, and other leftist sh*thole nations because they do not have due process of law. That is what you are advocating for in the US by supporting the deliberate violation of our constitutionally protected rights.

Do you have the constitutionally protected right to run a red light? Yes or no?

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to jaywalk? Yes or no?

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to expose yourself in public? Yes or no?

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to drive your car faster than the posted speed limit? Yes or no?

 

[Glitch]

Okay, so I'll go back to the point I made previously. If you accept the fact that you have to abide by jaywalking laws, and public nuisance laws, public nudity laws, and sanitary laws like not spitting on a sidewalk, why do you not accept mask-wearing laws?

Well, we should treat the refusal to not wear masks the same way we treat jaywalking, and spitting on the sidewalk, and public nudity, etc. What's wrong with that, and how is due process missing if we insist people wear masks and then ticket them if they refuse, possibly fining them, and yes going to trial if they want, the same way we treat traffic violations.

So if you accept traffic rules and laws such as jaywalking restrictions, and speed limits, and traffic lights, then why do you not accept mask-wearing laws?

Why would the government lock you away forever for not wearing a mask if we treat the same as we treat jaywalking?

Do you have the constitutionally protected right to run a red light? Yes or no?

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to jaywalk? Yes or no?

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to expose yourself in public? Yes or no?

Do you have a constitutionally protected right to drive your car faster than the posted speed limit? Yes or no?

You're just regurgitating the same ignorant BS over and over, not comprehending a damn thing. Deliberately I suspect.

You are simply incapable of grasping that I do not have to obey any law. It is government that must prove beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law that I am guilty of whatever the government accuses. I am not required to do a damn thing. If the government wants to charge me with anything that would deprive me of my life, liberty, or property then they must provide me my individual right to due process under the law.

The government cannot merely cite you for jaywalking and deprive you of your property. They are required to prove their case first.

If the government cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, on an individual by individual basis, in a court of law, but tries to deprive you of your life, liberty, or property, then they are violating the law. As with these illegal masking and social distancing mandates.

I've laid it out as simply as I can. If you can't grasp it, then it is because you don't want to. As I said, you want a government that can make those who disagree with you to simply disappear without a trial. You must be a very proud leftist indeed.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You're just regurgitating the same ignorant BS over and over, not comprehending a damn thing. Deliberately I suspect.

You are simply incapable of grasping that I do not have to obey any law.

Wait, this isn't correct. Yes, the government has restrictions on what it can do. Yes, human freedom is nearly boundless. No, you still have to obey every law. So would you say you don't have to obey the law against murdering another human being? You do not consider yourself having an obligation to refrain from shooting someone else in the face, for instance?

Yes, the government has to respect your due process rights if it thinks you've committed a crime. But you also have an affirmative obligation, both moral and legal, to refrain from engaging in a crime.

It is government that must prove beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law that I am guilty of whatever the government accuses.

I agree with you. I think that's the way it should be. And if a government passes a law that makes the refusal to wear masks illegal then the government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that you are guilty of that crime, just like they do with traffic violations.

I am not required to do a damn thing

Are you required to drive fast enough on a freeway to not slow down the flow of traffic? Yes or no?

Are you required to make way for emergency vehicles when they are traveling to an accident or taking someone to a hospital? Yes or no?

Are you required to make sure your headlights and brake lights on your car are in proper working order despite the cost and inconvenience? Yes or no?

Are you required to stop at a red stoplight when you approach an intersection and proceed at a green stoplight? Yes or no?

Are you required to refrain from driving a car while you are drunk? Yes or no?

Are you required to refrain from jaywalking? Yes or no?

Are you required to refrain from exposing yourself in public? Yes or no?

Are you required to refrain from spitting in someone's face? Yes or no?

Let's take it a few steps more extreme:

Are you required to refrain from murdering another person? Yes or no?

Are you required to refrain from engaging in fraud? Yes or no?

It sort of seems like you are required to do many damn things.

A citizen has both rights and responsibilities, not just rights.

If the government wants to charge me with anything that would deprive me of my life, liberty, or property then they must provide me my individual right to due process under the law.

I agree with you. And they can do that with masks, and if you get caught not wearing a mask they can take you to court.

How is that any different than taking you to court for a traffic violation? In both cases, the government is encouraging or discouraging a certain behavior for the benefit of the community.

The government cannot merely cite you for jaywalking and deprive you of your property. They are required to prove their case first.

I totally agree with you. We should do the same thing for refusing to wear a mask. You keep saying over and over again that your due process rights are being violated but yet cannot describe how they are being violated. Why would laws against refusing to wear masks be any different than laws against jaywalking?

If the government cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, on an individual by individual basis, in a court of law, but tries to deprive you of your life, liberty, or property, then they are violating the law. As with these illegal masking and social distancing mandates.

Wait, hold on, what makes the mask-wearing mandates illegal? How are they any different than ticketing someone a police officer thinks was jaywalking or running a red light? Why wouldn't we take someone to court for refusing to wear a mask just like we do for jaywalking or running a red light?

Can you point to a mask-wearing mandate anywhere in the country that violates anyone's due process rights? Let's talk about it.

]I've laid it out as simply as I can. If you can't grasp it, then it is because you don't want to. As I said, you want a government that can make those who disagree with you to simply disappear without a trial. You must be a very proud leftist indeed.

I've suggested no such thing. This is your fantasy that you've developed due to far right-wing propaganda about masks. You must be a very proud far-righter indeed. If we treat mask-wearing the same way we treat jaywalking, with respect for everyone's due process rights, why would you still oppose it?

You keep trying to link mask-wearing mandates with violations of due process, but you cannot indicate how due process would be violated. How would it be any different if we treat mask-wearing the same way we treat jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk?

 

[Lisa]

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.

Please explain how a mandate to wear a mask violates the 5th amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What part of the 14th amendment does a mask mandate violate? Your internet lawyer outrage is hilarious.

 

[Glitch]

Please explain how a mandate to wear a mask violates the 5th amendment?

What part of the 14th amendment does a mask mandate violate? Your internet lawyer outrage is hilarious.

Read the thread. I'm not going to regurgitate 300+ posts because you are incapable of comprehending what was posted. What part of the "Due Process Clause" escaped your grasp? By the way, I have the Supreme Court on my side in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905).

Government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Mandating masking and social distancing is depriving me of both my liberty and property. Unless the government can support their mandate by presenting evidence in a court of law that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what the government is accusing, on an individual by individual basis, they are violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

 

[Lursa]

Read the thread. I'm not going to regurgitate 300+ posts because you are incapable of comprehending what was posted. What part of the "Due Process Clause" escaped your grasp? By the way, I have the Supreme Court on my side in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905).

Government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Mandating masking and social distancing is depriving me of both my liberty and property. Unless the government can support their mandate by presenting evidence in a court of law that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what the government is accusing, on an individual by individual basis, they are violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

And yet, it may deny entrance and charge for trespassing if they dont leave or comply in any instance it chooses or its representatives choose.

Accomplishes the same thing, no due process needed.

 

[Glitch]

And yet, it may deny entrance and charge for trespassing if they dont leave or comply in any instance it chooses or its representatives choose.

Accomplishes the same thing, no due process needed.

Of course due process is needed. You don't think anyone can be cited for trespassing and that ends the matter, do you? The law enforcement officer issuing the citation must present evidence in a court of law proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has trespassed or somehow violated a lawful order. That last part will be particularly tricky since masking and social distancing are not laws, and therefore no law enforcement officer may issue an order requiring masks or social distancing, since they may only issue lawful orders. Unlawful orders do not need to be obeyed.

 

[Lursa]

Of course due process is needed. You don't think anyone can be cited for trespassing and that ends the matter, do you? The law enforcement officer issuing the citation must present evidence in a court of law proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has trespassed or somehow violated a lawful order. That last part will be particularly tricky since masking and social distancing are not laws, and therefore no law enforcement officer may issue an order requiring masks or social distancing, since they may only issue lawful orders. Unlawful orders do not need to be obeyed.

Yes, I do. The charge would be trespassing. If you dont leave when asked, you get charged. Same as if you break any other law...if there are restrictions on wearing shoes in a federal building and you dont...you can be kicked out. . Women cant go topless. You cant shit on the floor. For all these things, you can be asked to leave. And if you dont, be charged with trespassing.

As for proving someone 'trespassed' beyond a reasonable doubt...there are body cams, there are phone cams, there are video cams. There is the testimony of the federal employee who reported it. There is the testimony of the arresting officer that must do his job and testify that he had to remove the unmasked person from the federal building/property.

It's a lawful order...you have not proven that it isnt. But even so...I have been very clear on how Biden's mandate can be lawfully enforced.

 

[Lisa]

Mandating masking and social distancing is depriving me of both my liberty and property. Unless the government can support their mandate by presenting evidence in a court of law that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what the government is accusing, on an individual by individual basis, they are violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

How exactly does wearing a mask when you are in close proximity to other people deprive you of anything?

 

[Glitch]

Yes, I do. The charge would be trespassing. If you dont leave when asked, you get charged.

So let them charge and cite me. If the public is allowed access then the law enforcement officer issuing the citation must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the order was lawful. Simply telling someone to leave without reason or cause is not lawful. Neither is telling someone to leave if they are not wearing a mask or social distancing. There are many lawful reasons law enforcement may tell the public to leave an area, but masking and social distancing mandates are not among them.

It's a lawful order...you have not proven that it isnt. But even so...I have been very clear on how Biden's mandate can be lawfully enforced.

Don't be silly. How could it be a "lawful order" when there is no law pertaining to the order? Masking and social distancing are Executive Order dictates, not laws. Hence, law enforcement cannot give a "lawful order" to mask up or leave because it must be based upon an actual law to be lawful.

 

[Glitch]

How exactly does wearing a mask when you are in close proximity to other people deprive you of anything?

For one thing, it deprives me of my property. It isn't like masks are free.

 

[Lursa]

So let them charge and cite me. If the public is allowed access then the law enforcement officer issuing the citation must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the order was lawful. Simply telling someone to leave without reason or cause is not lawful. Neither is telling someone to leave if they are not wearing a mask or social distancing. There are many lawful reasons law enforcement may tell the public to leave an area, but masking and social distancing mandates are not among them.

I addressed all that. Why are you asking me to repeat it? The bar for 'legal' to enter premises is pretty low, as I wrote, and trespassing can be enforced. I also described proving reaonable beyond a doubt. Feel free to address all that specifically before repeating yourself.

Don't be silly. How could it be a "lawful order" when there is no law pertaining to the order? Masking and social distancing are Executive Order dictates, not laws. Hence, law enforcement cannot give a "lawful order" to mask up or leave because it must be based upon an actual law to be lawful.

How do you get arrested and charged and convicted for trespassing now? No shirt and wont leave? Trespassing. Where's that 'law' about shirts?

But here's an example I know you'll understand. In many states, businesses dont want people with concealed guns in their premises. Some states, they can even post that but the signs carry 'no weight of law' However if you get caught and dont leave, you can be arrested, charged, and convicted of trespassing. Correct? There's no law that says you cant carry in a public business, but you can still be arrested for tresspassing.

 

[Lisa]

For one thing, it deprives me of my property. It isn't like masks are free.

Neither are shirts, shoes, or functional brakes but you are required to have them if you own a car.

 

[Glitch]

I addressed all that. Why are you asking me to repeat it? The bar for 'legal' to enter premises is pretty low, as I wrote, and trespassing can be enforced. I also described proving reaonable beyond a doubt. Feel free to address all that specifically before repeating yourself.


How do you get arrested and charged and convicted for trespassing now? No shirt and wont leave? Trespassing. Where's that 'law' about shirts?

But here's an example I know you'll understand. In many states, businesses dont want people with concealed guns in their premises. Some states, they can even post that but the signs carry 'no weight of law' However if you get caught and dont leave, you can be arrested, charged, and convicted of trespassing. Correct? There's no law that says you cant carry in a public business, but you can still be arrested for tresspassing.

Why am I not surprised that an avowed communist considers all businesses to be government owned? You must be thinking of China, or the former USSR, because that is not how it works in the US. Businesses are privately owned, so unless it is a government-owned corporation, there is no such thing as a "public business" in the US. As any private property owner will tell you, they control who has access to their property, not the government.

When you get back to reality and stop comparing the US to communist nations and other dictatorships that you fancy maybe your examples will make more sense, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Lursa]

Why am I not surprised that an avowed communist considers all businesses to be government owned? You must be thinking of China, or the former USSR, because that is not how it works in the US. Businesses are privately owned, so unless it is a government-owned corporation, there is no such thing as a "public business" in the US. As any private property owner will tell you, they control who has access to their property, not the government.

This is some odd fantasy, since I was only referring to private businesses in my examples. And your final sentence there confirms my examples were correct Thank you. They dont need a specific law to have someone arrested for trespassing.

When you get back to reality and stop comparing the US to communist nations and other dictatorships that you fancy maybe your examples will make more sense, but I'm not holding my breath.

So you have run out of road, your argument failed, you turned to silly personal attacks...me? A communist? I'm not even in favor of raising the minimum wage or public health care

If you cant understand or refute my argument, the adult thing to do would be to admit it. Or ask further questions.

 

[Glitch]

This is some odd fantasy, since I was only referring to private businesses in my examples.

You can't even recall two posts ago, when you said: "There's no law that says you cant carry in a public business, but you can still be arrested for tresspassing." You somehow think your reference to "public business" should have always been referred to as "private businesses" which you never actually posted. Wow!

Boy, I'm gad I didn't hold my breath.

 

[Lursa]

You can't even recall two posts ago, when you said: "There's no law that says you cant carry in a public business, but you can still be arrested for tresspassing." You somehow think your reference to "public business" should have always been referred to as "private businesses" which you never actually posted. Wow!

Boy, I'm gad I didn't hold my breath.

And I meant a private business open to the public. Geez, you almost wet yourself there, didnt you, hoping you could score a point?

Sorry. What is a 'public' business? Got a definition? LOL

 

[Rich2018]

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.

How does requiring the wearing of masks violate the 5th Amendment ?

 

[iguanaman]

How does requiring the wearing of masks violate the 5th Amendment ?

Don't bother with glitch. He thinks behaving like an irresponsible jerk is a god given right. Just ignore him and be glad he is far away in Alaska where no one is around.

 

[Nickyjo]

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 should have done stand up comedy during the bubonic plague.

 

[Rich2018]

Don't bother with glitch. He thinks behaving like an irresponsible jerk is a god given right. Just ignore him and be glad he is far away in Alaska where no one is around.

I've crossed swords with him before

Doubtless he's just parroting sound bytes he's heard on Fox.

 

[Robertinfremont]

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.

From the American Bar Association

Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.

As a reminder, the 10th Amendment says, “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

States also retain significant emergency powers to regulate public safety and health through their own state constitutions and legal precedent dating back to the early 1800s.

The federal government’s quarantine powers are limited to those things the feds control, like ports of entry, airspace and such. States each have specific laws that set out who has what authority. Here is a list of each state’s rules.