• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The constitutionality of "stay-at-home" orders

My take is that there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers officials to deprive me of my freedom to travel, and there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees my right to survive a disease if I catch it. For the most part, we are a nation that needs to volunteer to rise to the occasion and offer to make personal sacrifices for the common good.

That being said, if everyone had good judgment, we wouldn't need laws to say what's in or out of bounds for the greater societal good. Unfortunately most of the country are individuals first, Americans second (or third, fourth, ...) so as a collective population we're going to do some boneheaded things collectively. For the most part I think this has worked out in our favor but the pandemic clearly shows the failing of a culture that says it loves America but generally isn't willing to sacrifice, even voluntarily, for it.
Actually, there is something in the US Constitution that empowers officials to deprive you of your freedom to travel. However, the US Constitution requires those government officials to provide you with due process of law BEFORE they deprive you of your freedoms.

It is one of those individual rights that everyone in the US is afforded. If government wishes to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property they must first provide evidence in a court of law that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the accused individual is guilty.

Which means that government may forcibly require someone to be quarantined if they provide evidence in a court of law that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the accused individual is infected, contagious, and a threat to the public. An example of this already happened in the case of Typhoid Mary. She appeared before the court on three separate occasions before she was deprived of her liberty for the rest of her life and forcibly quarantined. She was afforded her constitutionally protected right of due process.

All state-wide mandates violate the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.
 
Everything you said is absolutely true, and undisputed. The one thing you left out, however, is that States are also subject to the same restrictions and prohibitions as the federal government. A declared emergency does not give States, or the federal government, the authority to disregard the US Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):


The US Constitution does allow States to implement mandatory quarantines, masking, social distancing, etc., but they must abide by the US Constitution when doing so. Meaning that every individual is entitled to the due process of law as both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment requires. State mandates cannot be applied state-wide without violating the US Constitution.

Every individual is entitled to a trial where the government is required to provide evidence in a court of law that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the accused individual is infected, contagious, and a threat to the public BEFORE depriving them of their liberty through forced quarantines or mask mandates.

Individual due process of law is not a suggestion, it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Our Tenth Amendment applies to the traditional police power regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry of the State.
 
And if we do during a fast moving plague then China survives and we don't.

Do you have a pipe?
Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry are rolling over in their graves. You certainly do not represent the America they both fought to create.

Let me guess, you vote Democrat, right?
 
Our Tenth Amendment applies to the traditional police power regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry of the State.
And? I already said you were correct.

The Tenth Amendment does not supersede the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, which requires government to uphold the right every individual has to due process under the law.
 
Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry are rolling over in their graves. You certainly do not represent the America they both fought to create.

Let me guess, you vote Democrat, right?
how can you type that with a straight face TODAY?

wow.
 
And? I already said you were correct.

The Tenth Amendment does not supersede the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, which requires government to uphold the right every individual has to due process under the law.
You have to take it to Court if you feel your individual rights have been violated.

Police power is the right to protect the country and its population from threats to the public health and safety. --https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/ThePolicePower.html
 
how can you type that with a straight face TODAY?

wow.
It isn't difficult. Whenever I see a coward that submits to the will of government instead of standing up for their individual rights I naturally think of either a Republican or a Democrat voter. If they also convey how much they utterly despise the founding principles of the nation (i.e., "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness") then I naturally think of a Democrat voter exclusively. Only Democrat filth are truly anti-American cowards, the Republicans are just cowards.
 
It isn't difficult. Whenever I see a coward that submits to the will of government instead of standing up for their individual rights I naturally think of either a Republican or a Democrat voter.
and if a fast moving plague starts wiping out countries we'll be one of the first to go because we'd have to debate it while everyone dies.

this stuff isn't hard. places like China would survive because they can quickly lock down while we argue it in the circuit courts.


and, again, your boy is trying to steal an election so no one believes that you're pro-constitution. just more fake crap from the group of decades long fakers.

go hire a shrink.
 
It is one of those individual rights that everyone in the US is afforded. If government wishes to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property they must first provide evidence in a court of law that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the accused individual is guilty.
In other words, you have no personal problem depriving anyone else of their health and liberty just for the sake of your private profit motive?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson
 
In other words, you have no personal problem depriving anyone else of their health and liberty just for the sake of your private profit motive?
Where are you coming up with this "private profit motive" bullshit?

Are you incapable of comprehending the meaning of due process? Or are you like all the other Democrat filth who don't give a damn about constitutionally protected rights?
 
Where are you coming up with this "private profit motive" bullshit?

Are you incapable of comprehending the meaning of due process? Or are you like all the other Democrat filth who don't give a damn about constitutionally protected rights?
States have the traditional police power to ensure the health and safety of their citizenry. What Constitutionally protected rights are you referring to? A State legislature creating laws for the health and welfare of their citizenry is also protected by our Tenth Amendment.

Equal protection of the laws is ensuring due process.
 
Where . . . rights?

Did you ever figure out if you were actually upset about an insufficient level to due process
or if you just a bug up your butt about being told what to do?

If you're upset of the insufficient due process involved with stay-at-home orders,

how much due process is sufficient?
 
Glitch, would you be ok with being sued if someone dies because you refused to wear a mask instead of having laws restricting your individual liberty?
 
Did you ever figure out if you were actually upset about an insufficient level to due process
or if you just a bug up your butt about being told what to do?

If you're upset of the insufficient due process involved with stay-at-home orders,

how much due process is sufficient?
Why can't it be both?

It not only pisses me off when government thinks it can tell me what to do, is really pisses me off when government does it illegally by violating my rights.

When government provides evidence in a court of law that proves their case on an individual basis beyond a reasonable doubt, then there will be "sufficient" due process. If government does not do this for each and every individual every time they seek to deprive us of our life, liberty, or property, then there is insufficient due process.
 
Why can't it be both?

It not only pisses me off when government thinks it can tell me what to do, is really pisses me off when government does it illegally by violating my rights.

When government provides evidence in a court of law that proves their case on an individual basis beyond a reasonable doubt, then there will be "sufficient" due process. If government does not do this for each and every individual every time they seek to deprive us of our life, liberty, or property, then there is insufficient due process.
The defense production act can tell people what to do.

True socialism commandeering the means of production.
 
Is this unConstitutional and violating Due Process?


If not, why would "stay at home" orders be any different?
Of course. What part of "[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" are you incapable of comprehending?

Curfews deprives people of their liberty, and that is unconstitutional without individual due process.
 
Of course. What part of "[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" are you incapable of comprehending?

Curfews deprives people of their liberty, and that is unconstitutional without individual due process.
The Government can even draft people to go to war and maybe die for their Republic. Is that unConstituitonal?
 
Why can't it be both?
It not only pisses me off when government thinks it can tell me what to do, is really pisses me off when government does it illegally by violating my rights.
When government provides evidence in a court of law that proves their case on an individual basis beyond a reasonable doubt, then there will be "sufficient" due process. If government does not do this for each and every individual every time they seek to deprive us of our life, liberty, or property, then there is insufficient due process.
Can you believe what those ****ers in Britain had to put with during WWII?

The wicked evil govt expected them to blackout their windows during bombing raids.

Obviously what they should have done is
once a bombing raid had begun
begin holding trials for everyone
so that the people'd be forced to blackout their houses.

FREEDOM!
 
According to the Fifth Amendment “[No person shall] ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment stays that “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States without due process of law.”
Every Governor who has issued a “stay-at-home” order has violated both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
You conveniently left out the first 80% of the fifth amendment in which it very clearly declares that it is referencing criminal cases.

The ability to declare a state of emergency is the right of all executive officers both presidents and Governors. That absolutely gives them the power to make all kinds of temporary orders.
Congress, state legislatures, and the various courts can overturn them if they feel they are not justified, but you're not in the ballpark of correct.
 
You conveniently left out the first 80% of the fifth amendment in which it very clearly declares that it is referencing criminal cases.

The ability to declare a state of emergency is the right of all executive officers both presidents and Governors. That absolutely gives them the power to make all kinds of temporary orders.
Congress, state legislatures, and the various courts can overturn them if they feel they are not justified, but you're not in the ballpark of correct.
The Fifth Amendment applies to more than just criminal cases. Any time government seeks to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property, they must provide due process of law to every individual. That applies to criminal cases, quarantines, curfews, or any other time government wants to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property.

The ability to declare a State of Emergency does not give them the authority to supersede the US Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (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.

Government may not do whatever they please whenever it pleases them. They are to abide by the US Constitution at all times, without exception.
 
The Fifth Amendment applies to more than just criminal cases. Any time government seeks to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property, they must provide due process of law to every individual. That applies to criminal cases, quarantines, curfews, or any other time government wants to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property.

The ability to declare a State of Emergency does not give them the authority to supersede the US Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

Government may not do whatever they please whenever it pleases them. They are to abide by the US Constitution at all times, without exception.
It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.
 
Back
Top Bottom