What am I mistaken about?
You were mistaken stating "that Japanese-Americans interned in WW2 might disagree with" me. As I demonstrated, it is those who were illegally deprived of their individual due process rights that would be in support of my position. Anything that violates the Supreme Law of the Land is illegal, no matter what the Supreme Court may decide.
Again, was it a bad decision? ****ing right it was. But it was valid, in a legal sense, and will remain so (sadly) until (if) it is revisited in another case. Like Plessy v. Ferguson until Brown v. Board of Education. The Constitution is a set of rules, questions about which are arbitrated by the Supreme Court. Disliking a decision doesn't mean you can claim one is "invalid" because you don't like the court or administration of the time. It's this pesky concept called the rule of law and it is how our system works. Without it, we're screwed. If the rules are followed, you have to accept the outcome and live to fight another day. If you could go around claiming this and that to be invalid, what's to prevent someone who disagrees with you from doing the same? That's chaos.
As I also previously pointed out, the rules were not followed. FDR replaced all nine justices on the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1943, whether they wanted to be replaced or not.
FDR began 1937 by asking the Democrat-controlled Congress to add more justices to the Supreme Court, and they refused. He then asked the Democrat-controlled Congress to make 70 years old a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, and again they refused. That is when FDR began replacing the entire Supreme Court.
No decision made by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1945 can be considered valid considering the court was under extreme duress.
All that said, I am curious about something, and if it was covered earlier in the thread I apologize for missing it. I scanned most of the thread rather than reading it. I am unclear what due process rights you think have been denied by a mask mandate, especially since there were no enforcement provisions and penalties specified. And if it violates due process to take measures to protect public health, are you saying that the government can never take any such measures? For example, are states that do not offer exemptions from school immunization requirements violating due process? What about for public safety? I guess I'm just not seeing what has got you so hot and bothered.
Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the government is specifically prohibited from depriving any individual of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law first. Government imposed mask and social distancing mandates deprives everyone within the jurisdiction of the US of their liberty. Due process of law must precede any government deprivation.
As in the case with Typhoid Mary, who was tried in a court of law by government on three separate occasions. Where the government was required to present evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was infected, contagious, and a threat to the public, BEFORE she was quarantined for the rest of her life. Typhoid Mary was given her right to due process of law.
It is the exact same individual due process rights we provide everyone accused of a crime, BEFORE government is allowed to deprive them of their liberty and put them in prison.
If government wants to impose mask and social distancing mandates, then they can only do so on an individual by individual basis in a court of law, proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence that the individual is whatever the government accuses, BEFORE imposing any mandate and depriving them of their liberty.
Government (federal, State, or local) may not violate the US Constitution in cases of emergency, or to protect public health, or any other excuse they may concoct, as the Supreme Court held in
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905):
While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.
