Biden violates the US Constitution on his first day

[Nickyjo]

No, you can't. At least not legally. But since when has the law ever stopped leftist filth?

Mask mandates are as illegal as the TSA. In both cases the US Constitution never granted the federal government the authority. The TSA violates the Fourth Amendment, while leftist filth continue to violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments with their illegal mask mandates.

I get it, you want to go mask-less and carry a weapon onto airplanes. Make sure you let us know which flights you’ll be on. I prefer not to be killed. On the other hand, maybe the TSA will heed your call, and obtain a search warrant for each person they put through a metal detector. Don Quixote, meet the windmill. Windmill, meet the Don.

But you might as well face facts and history: Us filthy leftists have been doing (no doubt in your view) illegal and unconstitutional things for quite a while now. Started with busting trusts under TR, then moved to FDR and all sorts of rights and benefits for working people, then on to LBJ and Medicare. As I understand it, the food industry even has to put ingredients on their labels, as if it’s my business to know what I am eating. The latest catastrophe was the ACA, and get this! — Trump promised to do even better with his plan. Even W came up with a prescription drug plan.

But back to your TSA/mask issues. Can you post a link to recent 4th Amendment lawsuits that propose to eliminate mask mandates and the TSA? When I checked I found that suits failed. One apparently doesn’t have the right to fly, it seems.

 

[AGZ3rd]

I get it, you want to go mask-less and carry a weapon onto airplanes. Make sure you let us know which flights you’ll be on. I prefer not to be killed. On the other hand, maybe the TSA will heed your call, and obtain a search warrant for each person they put through a metal detector. Don Quixote, meet the windmill. Windmill, meet the Don.

But you might as well face facts and history: Us filthy leftists have been doing (no doubt in your view) illegal and unconstitutional things for quite a while now. Started with busting trusts under TR, then moved to FDR and all sorts of rights and benefits for working people, then on to LBJ and Medicare. As I understand it, the food industry even has to put ingredients on their labels, as if it’s my business to know what I am eating. The latest catastrophe was the ACA, and get this! — Trump promised to do even better with his plan. Even W came up with a prescription drug plan.

But back to your TSA/mask issues. Can you post a link to recent 4th Amendment lawsuits that propose to eliminate mask mandates and the TSA? When I checked I found that suits failed. One apparently doesn’t have the right to fly, it seems.

It's crazy how we leftist filth are always violating laws and the constitution. Then you have certain individuals coming out the wood works complaining about how wearing a mask is a violation of there constitutional rights, but when your told what to do at your job or how to drive a car or when your kid needs to get his or her shots for school its no big deal but wear a mask and all hell breaks loose and all of a sudden there is constitutional scholars everywhere.

 

[danielpalos]

As I have stated numerous times already, the federal government is limited to only those power the US Constitution specifically grants them. If the power is not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution, then the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising that power. The federal government may not violate the US Constitution, even in cases of pandemics, as the Supreme Court has already held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

Furthermore, with regard to mask mandates and social distancing specifically, those are infringements against the people's liberty and freedom of association. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires the government to provide due process of law prior to depriving anyone of their liberty. Failure to comply is a violation of the US Constitution.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever;...

Any questions?

 

[TurtleDude]

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever;...

Any questions?

yeah, that doesnt refute what he said because your chopping that provision out from its context is bogus

 

[Nickyjo]

As I have stated numerous times already, the federal government is limited to only those power the US Constitution specifically grants them. If the power is not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution, then the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising that power. The federal government may not violate the US Constitution, even in cases of pandemics, as the Supreme Court has already held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

Furthermore, with regard to mask mandates and social distancing specifically, those are infringements against the people's liberty and freedom of association. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires the government to provide due process of law prior to depriving anyone of their liberty. Failure to comply is a violation of the US Constitution.

So sue. Let us know how it turns out. Somehow I can distinguish between a mask and a jail cell, but have at it if you can’t.

 

[yankintx]

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 your outside and solo on public land no problem with being mask free. I don't think bears can catch covid.

If your in a Federal Building mask up.

 

[yankintx]

I have yet to see Glitch say something correct about the law.

In my Air Force days we call them barracks lawyers. They watch a few episodes of LA Law and believe they are experts.

 

[Glitch]

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever;...

Any questions?

Exclusively for the District of Columbia. Or can't you read? You are citing the very reason why DC cannot be made into a State without an amendment to the US Constitution that repeals the clause you are citing. That specific clause was inserted to create the capitol of the nation and give Congress total control over the capitol.

You do comprehend that the US Constitution was created specifically to limit the federal government's power, right? There is no power anywhere in the US Constitution that gives Congress the authority to do whatever they please, so stop pretending otherwise because it just makes you appear even more ignorant than you already are.

 

[danielpalos]

yeah, that doesnt refute what he said because your chopping that provision out from its context is bogus

That power applies to federal districts.

 

[danielpalos]

Exclusively for the District of Columbia. Or can't you read? You are citing the very reason why DC cannot be made into a State without an amendment to the US Constitution that repeals the clause you are citing. That specific clause was inserted to create the capitol of the nation and give Congress total control over the capitol.

You do comprehend that the US Constitution was created specifically to limit the federal government's power, right? There is no power anywhere in the US Constitution that gives Congress the authority to do whatever they please, so stop pretending otherwise because it just makes you appear even more ignorant than you already are.

It applies to federal districts or sovereign jurisdictions.

 

[Nickyjo]

Exclusively for the District of Columbia. Or can't you read? You are citing the very reason why DC cannot be made into a State without an amendment to the US Constitution that repeals the clause you are citing. That specific clause was inserted to create the capitol of the nation and give Congress total control over the capitol.

You do comprehend that the US Constitution was created specifically to limit the federal government's power, right? There is no power anywhere in the US Constitution that gives Congress the authority to do whatever they please, so stop pretending otherwise because it just makes you appear even more ignorant than you already are.

All of what you say about the role of the federal government may be true, but Congress has taken the interstate commerce clause and run with it to impose laws and regulations in ways the Founders no doubt never dreamed of. Americans are practical, hardly ideological, and most don't care what the founders thought. The Constitution is a bungee cord, not a wall. Thus, when a problem cries for a solution and states do nothing, advocates go to DC. Happened during the labor and civil rights movements, more recently on the environment and health care, though honoring tradition, the ACA gave states significany power. A few conservatives will hold their breath and stomp their feet, while the rest of the country moves on.

 

[Glitch]

It applies to federal districts or sovereign jurisdictions.

There is only one federal district. The District of Columbia.

Get a clue.

 

[Glitch]

All of what you say about the role of the federal government may be true, but Congress has taken the interstate commerce clause and run with it to impose laws and regulations in ways the Founders no doubt never dreamed of. Americans are practical, hardly ideological, and most don't care what the founders thought. The Constitution is a bungee cord, not a wall. Thus, when a problem cries for a solution and states do nothing, advocates go to DC. Happened during the labor and civil rights movements, more recently on the environment and health care, though honoring tradition, the ACA gave states significany power. A few conservatives will hold their breath and stomp their feet, while the rest of the country moves on.

That was true under Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Which was decided by a Supreme Court under considerable duress. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR would end up replacing all nine members of the Supreme Court, and only two of them left voluntarily. However, Wickard was pretty much overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Much harm was done between 1942 and 1995 under Wickard, thanks to the fascist FDR. No decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1945 (the year of FDR's death) can be trusted as valid.

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The law with which the federal government must abide, and that law restricts the federal government to very specific powers and nothing beyond those powers. As the Tenth Amendment clearly states, if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a power, and does not deny that power to the States, then that power belongs exclusively to the States and/or the people, respectively. That includes the power to regulate education, healthcare, infrastructure, social spending, etc. These are all exclusive powers of the States, not the federal government.

Those "few conservatives" you're referencing include 28 States that have refused to institute State Exchanges and have challenged the constitutionality under the Tenth Amendment to the Supreme Court. Last time I checked a 56% majority of the States constitutes more than just a "few."

 

[Nickyjo]

That was true under Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Which was decided by a Supreme Court under considerable duress. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR would end up replacing all nine members of the Supreme Court, and only two of them left voluntarily. However, Wickard was pretty much overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Much harm was done between 1942 and 1995 under Wickard, thanks to the fascist FDR. No decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1945 (the year of FDR's death) can be trusted as valid.

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The law with which the federal government must abide, and that law restricts the federal government to very specific powers and nothing beyond those powers. As the Tenth Amendment clearly states, if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a power, and does not deny that power to the States, then that power belongs exclusively to the States and/or the people, respectively. That includes the power to regulate education, healthcare, infrastructure, social spending, etc. These are all exclusive powers of the States, not the federal government.

Those "few conservatives" you're referencing include 28 States that have refused to institute State Exchanges and have challenged the constitutionality under the Tenth Amendment to the Supreme Court. Last time I checked a 56% majority of the States constitutes more than just a "few."

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My reference to a “few conservatives” was not intended to describe only slight resistance to the ACA, which has been significant as you point out, but to the raft of liberal programs from FDR to now. But still, (I haven’t looked and don’t know) you might want to check the population of the 28 states that have resisted. My assumption is that it is far less than 56% of us. And more importantly, if Congress changes party control next year, I somehow doubt that the GOP will have the stomach to attack Obamacare.
As to FDR, he is rightly honored in our memory and I am delighted with the services and programs and approach to government that he inspired and continue to this day. I presume that people who believe as you do could still sue, but we as a nation have obviously moved beyond your view of what the Constitution permits, and I doubt that suits would succeed. One of the grumbles from the right when the ACA was proposed was in the form of a lament that if successful, it would be another example of government working on behalf of people's welfare. Remember Reagan’s ugly phrase that “I am from the government and here to help” are the most terrifying words in the language. An obscure, but sort of relevant reference: in the film “My Dinner with Andre,” Andre speaks eloquently of sleeping outdoors under the stars, with no need of things like an electric blanket. To which the Wallace Shawn character replies, “I like my electric blanket.” The people of our country, as have others in countries similar to ours, like our electric blankets.

 

[Ug make hammer]

There is only one federal district. The District of Columbia.

Get a clue.

Go easy. There are federal enclaves (military bases?) and there's the federal level of appeals courts. Probably the latter is what is meant here.

I had a joke about masked bears, but seeing how many people here are loaded for bear ...

 

[Glitch]

Go easy. There are federal enclaves (military bases?) and there's the federal level of appeals courts. Probably the latter is what is meant here.

I had a joke about masked bears, but seeing how many people here are loaded for bear ...

The reason Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution exists is to establish the National Capitol as the District of Columbia, taken from the States of Maryland and Virginia.

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;-

The above clause is also why it will require an amendment to the US Constitution, ratified by 38 State legislatures, before DC can be made into a State.

While I am loaded for bear, I have not had the need to use my firearms in self-defense since moving to Alaska 30 years ago. All my bear encounters have been with non-aggressive bears. I happen to like bears. They are very intelligent and curious animals with a great sense of humor. Besides, I only hunt what I intend to eat, and I have no intention of eating bear.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I agree with everything you said about bears. Still, going armed is probably a good idea as a foundation of being confident and not having conflicts of interest with the bear. At least that's how I've found it with snakes. The snake is quite afraid of you, before you even become aware of its existence, and not being as smart as you (or even as a bear or coyote) it will only attack as a last resort. I'm talking even notoriously aggressive snakes, like the rattlesnake or cobra. They'll do anything to avoid attacking something way too big to eat, because their survival after that is such a long shot. If a bear understands conflict of feeding grounds, and is hungry, it's probably also going to see the benefits of letting you kill animals and the bear enjoying the remains.

I do think there's a "DC problem" with so many poor people living there, not meaningfully working for Federal govt, yet without a state to represent them. Surely the Constitution authors could imagine a civil service outnumbering an actual state, and either made the "ten square miles" rule stronger, or required only civil servants to live in DC.

Ideally, I'd be for statehood (with the Federal Precinct within it but no-one but the President allowed to live there). I can't see Republicans handing over a deep blue state though.
Second best I would redraw the boundaries to mostly parkland, dropping most of DC's residents into Maryland.

 

[Glitch]

I agree with everything you said about bears. Still, going armed is probably a good idea as a foundation of being confident and not having conflicts of interest with the bear. At least that's how I've found it with snakes. The snake is quite afraid of you, before you even become aware of its existence, and not being as smart as you (or even as a bear or coyote) it will only attack as a last resort. I'm talking even notoriously aggressive snakes, like the rattlesnake or cobra. They'll do anything to avoid attacking something way too big to eat, because their survival after that is such a long shot. If a bear understands conflict of feeding grounds, and is hungry, it's probably also going to see the benefits of letting you kill animals and the bear enjoying the remains.

Most wild predators are opportunistic feeders. If they see a bunch of humans catching the prey that they love to eat (salmon in this case), it would be very natural for them to try to get some of that bounty if they can. It would be like a hungry and broke human in a grocery store, they are going to want to try to steal something as stealthily as possible. The problem with an 4-foot tall at the shoulder, 8 foot long, 1,200 pound brown bear is that they are not very stealthy. Most people tend to notice them when they approach the river in search of salmon.

The bears are not being aggressive - at least I have not encountered an aggressive bear yet in my 30-years of living in Alaska. They are just curious, and probably hungry. Bears are always hungry. There are only two times a bear will attack a human: 1) To protect itself or it's young; and 2) When surprised, which again is about protecting itself. It is extremely easy to surprise a bear if there is no wind or you are walking against the wind. They can smell as well as any dog, but they can't see well beyond ~10 meters. They are incredibly near-sighted. Humans just appear as a blur at that distance, which makes it difficult for the bear to assess the level of threat.

I have lost salmon to a successfully sneaky bear in the past (just once). I really didn't mind. I enjoy fishing for salmon, and if a bear steals my catch, it just means I can fish some more. I carry my firearms to protect me, not my fish.

I do think there's a "DC problem" with so many poor people living there, not meaningfully working for Federal govt, yet without a state to represent them. Surely the Constitution authors could imagine a civil service outnumbering an actual state, and either made the "ten square miles" rule stronger, or required only civil servants to live in DC.

Ideally, I'd be for statehood (with the Federal Precinct within it but no-one but the President allowed to live there). I can't see Republicans handing over a deep blue state though.
Second best I would redraw the boundaries to mostly parkland, dropping most of DC's residents into Maryland.

Except for the Twenty-Third Amendment which gave DC three Electoral College votes, and the fact that it is the national capitol, how is DC different from any other US territory? Nobody living in US territories are allowed to vote for President or US Senator, and the one US House Representative they do get is a non-voting member. Only the States are represented in Congress, and only the States (plus DC) may determine the President.

Furthermore, if DC were to be abolished, then it should revert back to the States from whence the property was taken - Maryland and Virginia. At the very least both Maryland and Virginia have a say in whether or not DC becomes a State under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

It would also require the establishment of a new national capitol, which cannot be part of any State. I suppose they could always move the national capitol to Puerto Rico, Guam, or the US Marshall Islands.

In either case, it would still require an amendment to the US Constitution, ratified by a minimum of 38 State legislatures, before any part of the US Constitution can be altered, and attempting to create a State out of the national capitol would most certainly be altering Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.

 

[Ug make hammer]

<...>

I have lost salmon to a successfully sneaky bear in the past (just once). I really didn't mind. I enjoy fishing for salmon, and if a bear steals my catch, it just means I can fish some more. I carry my firearms to protect me, not my fish.


Except for the Twenty-Third Amendment which gave DC three Electoral College votes, and the fact that it is the national capitol, how is DC different from any other US territory? Nobody living in US territories are allowed to vote for President or US Senator, and the one US House Representative they do get is a non-voting member. Only the States are represented in Congress, and only the States (plus DC) may determine the President.

Furthermore, if DC were to be abolished, then it should revert back to the States from whence the property was taken - Maryland and Virginia. At the very least both Maryland and Virginia have a say in whether or not DC becomes a State under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:


It would also require the establishment of a new national capitol, which cannot be part of any State. I suppose they could always move the national capitol to Puerto Rico, Guam, or the US Marshall Islands.

In either case, it would still require an amendment to the US Constitution, ratified by a minimum of 38 State legislatures, before any part of the US Constitution can be altered, and attempting to create a State out of the national capitol would most certainly be altering Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.

I love salmon, but haven't had the pleasure of fresh caught river salmon with seasonal variability. But if humans appeared and took ALL the fish, I guess the bears would care then. And if hunters armed with guns had "bred up" to seriously cramp the food supply of bears, the bears would pretty much have to turn violent, wouldn't they?


Representation in the Electoral College is chicken-feed. Particularly for a territory like DC, which has zero prospect of swinging. And it's interesting that you compare DC to territories. I consider it deeply unjust, imperialist behaviour for the US to hold "territories" without offering their people (US citizens even) the option of state-hood.

WHERE the House and Senate convene barely matters. They could go virtual, or rotate annually between the States. Like a lot of the Constitution, this matter of where the capital should be is bogged down in assumptions about information travelling no faster than a horse or ship, and even worse, information travelling with an individual to vouch for its validity. But I see you're a literalist, and all objections will be met with "it has a mechanism of change, yet hasn't been changed, so the People don't support any change" when you know it's not that simple. Changing the constitution requires two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures.

No other democracy has such high barriers to constitutional change. Passed twice by Parliament, before and after an election, is pretty common. So is a referendum (with one, or two, Parliamentary passages). Britain has no constitution to speak of, yet for single members elected first past the post, to represent equal population areas, the UK system is world class. They're not even bound to honour referenda, but they do anyway.

 

[Glitch]

I love salmon, but haven't had the pleasure of fresh caught river salmon with seasonal variability. But if humans appeared and took ALL the fish, I guess the bears would care then. And if hunters armed with guns had "bred up" to seriously cramp the food supply of bears, the bears would pretty much have to turn violent, wouldn't they?

That is not possible. There are fewer the 750,000 Alaskans, and even when you add in the 2.1 million tourists that use to visit Alaska every Summer, there are still more than 25 million salmon returning every season. The game is managed similarly. We ensure there is plenty of game for both wildlife and humans.

Representation in the Electoral College is chicken-feed. Particularly for a territory like DC, which has zero prospect of swinging. And it's interesting that you compare DC to territories. I consider it deeply unjust, imperialist behaviour for the US to hold "territories" without offering their people (US citizens even) the option of state-hood.

DC is a US territory. A federal district to be precise. It does not have the power of a State, because it was never intended to be a State. You cannot have a federal capitol in an existing State.

You can consider it whatever you like, but unless they are a State they have no voice in the federal government. The US has granted independence to former US territories in the past, like Cuba and the Philippines, but it has also held on to territories, like Puerto Rico and Guam. Nor is the US the only nation with territories. The US Virgin Islands, that the US bought from the Dutch in 1917, sits right next door to the British Virgin Islands.

WHERE the House and Senate convene barely matters. They could go virtual, or rotate annually between the States. Like a lot of the Constitution, this matter of where the capital should be is bogged down in assumptions about information travelling no faster than a horse or ship, and even worse, information travelling with an individual to vouch for its validity. But I see you're a literalist, and all objections will be met with "it has a mechanism of change, yet hasn't been changed, so the People don't support any change" when you know it's not that simple. Changing the constitution requires two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures.

No other democracy has such high barriers to constitutional change. Passed twice by Parliament, before and after an election, is pretty common. So is a referendum (with one, or two, Parliamentary passages). Britain has no constitution to speak of, yet for single members elected first past the post, to represent equal population areas, the UK system is world class. They're not even bound to honour referenda, but they do anyway.

Britian had the Magna Carta. I refer to it in the past tense because it is effectively dead in England, and has been for quite some time. However, that very same Magna Carta is the basis for several Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments can all trace their origins back to that document signed in 1215.

You are also comparing the US federal government to the governments of other countries, and that is not an equivalent comparison. If anything the US is more along the lines of the EU, except that the US is a federation while the EU is a confederation. The US tried a confederation between 1775 and 1789, but it didn't work because the Articles of Confederation had no real teeth. States could simply ignore Congress' request for taxes, and Maryland did. So the US abandoned the confederation and replaced it with a federation in the form of the US Constitution.

Each individual State within the US would be equivalent to each member nation of the EU. The US is also not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic. Technically, even initiatives and propositions are a violation of the US Constitution since that involves direct democracy, but they are tolerated in several States.

The founding fathers begrudgingly allowed the US House of Representatives to be elected by popular vote, but that was all. More than a century later the Seventeenth Amendment was added to allow US Senators to be elected by popular vote. The States are still the ones that determine the President, as they always have.

Nobody in any of the member nations of the EU elect the Presidency of the Council of the EU either, and that can only be altered by treaty. So much for your "no other democracy..." nonsense. The EU is just as undemocratic as the US, even more so because the people in the member nations have no say on who represents them in the EU.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Yeah whatever. You just want to lecture me on what I know already, and justify the bad decisions the authors of the original Constitution and the BOR made with "you can't change it because it takes much more than a majority, ha-ha lol sucks to be you". I ****ing know that too, thanks so much. The US is not a democracy, blah blah, I've had this stupid argument a dozen times. I never said it was, but I remain focussed always on practical ways to make the US better instead of the failed project of making it conform to the Founders' expectations.

The States do not determine who is the President? If you have some fantasy where a State can effectively appoint the opposite Electors to their popular vote, just try that and let's see how it goes. And please apologize in advance, for the property which will get burned and the cops who will get shot! The People decide the Presidency, by tradition, and you will find it's a tradition which vastly outweighs any rules-lawyering State government.

Last chance. The existing injustice of DC, COULD be practically minimalized by drawing new boundaries (minimizing the population of DC while retaining "ten Miles square"), grandfathering anyone still there (but not their children) and giving the others representation within the state of Maryland (mostly). Since 29% of the DC population are already Federal employees, it might not be as sprawling a border as expected. Some people would have to move. They could take ten or twenty years: this is an old problem which would take a while to fix. And maybe it would be less of a swamp if new Federal governments had a harder time bringing in help and more incentive to hire from within DC.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Left and right both do this. When a proposed change is opposed:

When the written law is on your side, hammer the written law.
When tradition is stronger than written law, hammer tradition.
When neither the law nor the tradition are on your side, hammer the mismatch between them.

And it's even easier when a proposed change is supported.
The written law and the tradition may both be wrong, but breaking them apart is about the only mistake you can make.

Can someone tell me how to change my Leaning away from "Progressive"? I chose badly there.

 

[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 is it a violation ?

It is entirely in line with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Glitch]

How is it a violation ?

It is entirely in line with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Then you clearly have no clue what the Due Process Clause means, because not a single individual was ever brought before a court of law where the government presented evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE imposing their mask mandate - which Due Process requires. Until that happens Biden illegal Executive Orders that mandate masks on federal property are violating both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

You need to learn what Due Process means, and get a clue.

 

[Rich2018]

Then you clearly have no clue what the Due Process Clause means, because not a single individual was ever brought before a court of law where the government presented evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE imposing their mask mandate - which Due Process requires. Until that happens Biden illegal Executive Orders that mandate masks on federal property are violating both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

You need to learn what Due Process means, and get a clue.

Due process can simply mean (in times of a medical emergency - like say a global pandemic with hundreds of thousands dead), the order of the executive.

Coronavirus Death Toll and Trends - Worldometer

Updated total and statistics, graphs and charts tracking the total number of deaths, deaths per day, and death by country from the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan, China

www.worldometers.info