- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 22,341
- Reaction score
- 9,893
- Location
- Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.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.
Our Tenth Amendment applies to the traditional police power regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry of the State.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.
Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry are rolling over in their graves. You certainly do not represent the America they both fought to create.And if we do during a fast moving plague then China survives and we don't.
Do you have a pipe?
And? I already said you were correct.Our Tenth Amendment applies to the traditional police power regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry of the State.
how can you type that with a straight face TODAY?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?
You have to take it to Court if you feel your individual rights have been violated.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.
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.how can you type that with a straight face TODAY?
wow.
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.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.
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?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.
Where are you coming up with this "private profit motive" bullshit?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?
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.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 . . . rights?
Why can't it be both?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?
The defense production act can tell people what to do.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.
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?Is this unConstitutional and violating Due Process?
DC’s mayor extends public emergency through end of President Trump's time in office
The mayor of Washington, D.C., is extending the public emergency declared earlier today for a total of 15 days.www.thedenverchannel.com
If not, why would "stay at home" orders be any different?
The Government can even draft people to go to war and maybe die for their Republic. Is that unConstituitonal?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.
Can you believe what those ****ers in Britain had to put with during WWII?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.
You conveniently left out the first 80% of the fifth amendment in which it very clearly declares that it is referencing criminal cases.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?