• 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!

Whose Call Is It?

By your reasoning, the government must prove in a court of law, on an individual basis, why someone needs to have a driver's license before banning driving without a license. That just isn't how due process works.

Incorrect again. States have already established substantive due process with regard to driver's licenses by requiring individual tests before issuing them individually. Therefore with regard to driver's licenses States are adhering to the Due Process clause. What no government may do is restrict the individual right to freely travel without due process first.
 
Incorrect again. States have already established substantive due process with regard to driver's licenses by requiring individual tests before issuing them individually. Therefore with regard to driver's licenses States are adhering to the Due Process clause. What no government may do is restrict the individual right to freely travel without due process first.
Except it is illegal to drive without a license period. It doesn't matter if I took the test first or not - I cannot legally drive without a license. And for those under the age of 16 or so, it is impossible to drive legally. You are just very confused about what due process is.
 
Who is going to be responsible for the financial losses from staying closed? Why is getting people back to work a "Tweety's ego" issue?

because he's a brainless moron who is willing to put us all at risk in the hopes that the economy will carry him to reelection, but who is not willing to give us the tools to get back to work. in fact, the latest disinformation message is that testing a lot of people won't help, which is bull****, but the response to this was so inept that they don't have enough tests, so that's the fallback position.

look, i'll try only once to get through to you, even though i know that it's ****ing hopeless. this could kill you or at least screw your lungs up. be ****ing careful. that's more important than your fealty to a complete moron who has proven the Peter Principle pretty much daily. however, i'll go ahead and assume that this didn't work, so, moving on.
 
because he's a brainless moron who is willing to put us all at risk in the hopes that the economy will carry him to reelection, but who is not willing to give us the tools to get back to work. in fact, the latest disinformation message is that testing a lot of people won't help, which is bull****, but the response to this was so inept that they don't have enough tests, so that's the fallback position.
Wow!! not a cogent idea in the bunch. Total garbage.
Helix said:
look, i'll try only once to get through to you, even though i know that it's ****ing hopeless. this could kill you or at least screw your lungs up. be ****ing careful. that's more important than your fealty to a complete moron who has proven the Peter Principle pretty much daily. however, i'll go ahead and assume that this didn't work, so, moving on.
Ok, I'll try this one to get through to YOU: Millions of people have lost their jobs, businesses are closing and the owners going bankrupt. Folks are going to loose their homes. Trump is trying to alleviate as much of this as possible. And many people agree with him. It's not ****ing hopeless. It's totally manageable. Several states have already come up with reasonable plans. If you are so gripped with fear and dread crawl back into your bed, pull up the covers and tremble in fear.
 
Wow!! not a cogent idea in the bunch. Total garbage.
Ok, I'll try this one to get through to YOU: Millions of people have lost their jobs, businesses are closing and the owners going bankrupt. Folks are going to loose their homes. Trump is trying to alleviate as much of this as possible. And many people agree with him. It's not ****ing hopeless. It's totally manageable. Several states have already come up with reasonable plans. If you are so gripped with fear and dread crawl back into your bed, pull up the covers and tremble in fear.

Tweety is only about Tweety. what's hopeless is convincing you of that. peace, and stay safe.
 
Tweety is only about Tweety. what's hopeless is convincing you of that. peace, and stay safe.
You wouldn't succeed; I don't buy into other people's blind prejudices. Stay safe.
 
Your meme about the influenza virus of 1918 is a deliberate lie.

Because the US, and most other European nations, were involved in WW I there were no reports of the influenza virus in the media. Every nation involved in the war censored their media and refused to allow anyone to report on the devastating effects of the influenza virus. Only Spain, who was not involved in WW I, could report on the influenza virus of 1918. Which is why to this day we erroneous call an influenza virus that began in Kansas the "Spanish Flu" because Spain was the first country to actually report it.

Snopes rates it partially true:

What's True
More people died during the 1918 flu pandemic than in all of WWI, with the majority of deaths occurring during the deadly second wave of the influenza outbreak. In general, places that disregarded social distancing rules saw more influenza cases.

What's False
The second wave of the influenza outbreak started before the end of WWI and was largely fueled by sickened soldiers traveling home to hospitals.
 
No, they cannot, but that is because you do not comprehend the meaning of procedural due process. No government (local, State, or federal) has the authority to suspend, alter, or terminate any of your individual rights by decree. They are required to prove their case, on an individual basis, in a court of law. Until they do that they cannot restrict anyone's right to travel freely.

In regards to quarantine, there is about 100 years worth of federal court rulings that disagree with you and in the end, your opinion and my opinion of the constitution is irrelevant, the federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional. Ask yourself, why has no one successfully challenged the current quarantine/shelter in place orders? It's because they would not prevail in the courts.
 
Last edited:
In regards to quarantine, there is about 100 years worth of federal court rulings that disagree with you and in the end, your opinion and my opinion of the constitution is irrelevant, the federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional. Ask yourself, why has no one successfully challenged the current quarantine/shelter in place orders? It's because they would not prevail in the courts.

No, they don't actually. In fact, it was the Supreme Court in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) that held the right to travel without government restriction is one of those “privileges or immunities” of every American. The Supreme Court agrees with me, particularly in regard to procedural due process. The States and federal government may only quarantine those who are actively contagious and will infect others imminently. And they must present evidence of both at a trial, at which the government bears the burden of proof. That means a trial is required before any quarantine, no matter the public danger, for every individual whose liberty they wish to restrict. It must also be a fair trial, not one driven by media-generated mass hysteria or government-generated fear. Anything less is a violation of due process and our constitutionally protected rights.

People are voluntarily staying at home, and Governors are not enforcing their illegal orders. That is why nobody has challenged the unconstitutional State laws. However, that will change if they attempt to actually enforce the law.
 
No, they don't actually. In fact, it was the Supreme Court in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) that held the right to travel without government restriction is one of those “privileges or immunities” of every American. The Supreme Court agrees with me, particularly in regard to procedural due process. The States and federal government may only quarantine those who are actively contagious and will infect others imminently. And they must present evidence of both at a trial, at which the government bears the burden of proof. That means a trial is required before any quarantine, no matter the public danger, for every individual whose liberty they wish to restrict. It must also be a fair trial, not one driven by media-generated mass hysteria or government-generated fear. Anything less is a violation of due process and our constitutionally protected rights.

People are voluntarily staying at home, and Governors are not enforcing their illegal orders. That is why nobody has challenged the unconstitutional State laws. However, that will change if they attempt to actually enforce the law.

The courts have long given state and local governments broad legal authority on matters of public health and quarantine laws:

Are quarantine orders constitutional? | Pacific Legal Foundation

Quarantine Law

And btw, some localities are issuing fines for violation of quarantine / stay at home orders.
 
:lol: I feel your pain. Each day is blurring into the other. I am not getting dressed until 1:00 in the afternoon. I have no desire to be productive and the least little thing irritates me. I think they call it depression.

As my friend likes to say, "its blursday in the month of blursuary"
 
The courts have long given state and local governments broad legal authority on matters of public health and quarantine laws:

Are quarantine orders constitutional? | Pacific Legal Foundation

Quarantine Law

And btw, some localities are issuing fines for violation of quarantine / stay at home orders.

That may be, but the courts did not dismiss our right to due process. As I said, if the States wish to quarantine anyone they must provide proof in court that the individual in question is actively contagious and will infect others imminently. They must do this before they impose the quarantine.

No local, State, or federal government has the authority to dismiss our constitutionally protected rights by decree without due process of law. That is called "abuse of power" and it is illegal.
 
That may be, but the courts did not dismiss our right to due process. As I said, if the States wish to quarantine anyone they must provide proof in court that the individual in question is actively contagious and will infect others imminently. They must do this before they impose the quarantine.

No local, State, or federal government has the authority to dismiss our constitutionally protected rights by decree without due process of law. That is called "abuse of power" and it is illegal.

Again, the states are given very broad powers in regard to public health. Let's say you had an airborne novel virus spreading through the nation that had a 25% case fatality rate. Do you honestly think the courts would rule that the states would not be able to issue any stay at home orders to curb its spread without showing each individual under such orders was infected and contagious?

The courts have typically equated severe threats to public health to wartime threats and ruled accordingly. If the ACLU thought they would prevail in the courts against these stay at home orders, they would be bringing cases to challenge them all over the country.

I live on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. In Kansas, the governor's order to ban church services under the stay at home order was challenged and the state supreme court upheld the governor's order. This is in a conservative state.
 
Again, the states are given very broad powers in regard to public health. Let's say you had an airborne novel virus spreading through the nation that had a 25% case fatality rate. Do you honestly think the courts would rule that the states would not be able to issue any stay at home orders to curb its spread without showing each individual under such orders was infected and contagious?

The courts have typically equated severe threats to public health to wartime threats and ruled accordingly. If the ACLU thought they would prevail in the courts against these stay at home orders, they would be bringing cases to challenge them all over the country.

I live on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. In Kansas, the governor's order to ban church services under the stay at home order was challenged and the state supreme court upheld the governor's order. This is in a conservative state.

Those broad powers do not include suspending, limiting, or terminating our constitutionally protected rights without due process of law. There are no exceptions, not even for pandemics.

If the States wish to deprive you of your liberty they are required to present proof before the courts. It is called procedural due process and it cannot be waived or dismissed by any government.
 
Those broad powers do not include suspending, limiting, or terminating our constitutionally protected rights without due process of law. There are no exceptions, not even for pandemics.

If the States wish to deprive you of your liberty they are required to present proof before the courts. It is called procedural due process and it cannot be waived or dismissed by any government.

You are expressing an irrelevant opinion. The courts have long supported the state's power to do so during pandemics and serious threats to public health. The courts are all that matter. My opinion and your opinion of what is and is not constitutional is totally irrelevant. For example, if the federal courts ruled somehow that every American had a constitutional right to a Texan wiping their ass for them, then they would have that constitutional right regardless of the fact it's nowhere in the constitution.
 
You are expressing an irrelevant opinion. The courts have long supported the state's power to do so during pandemics and serious threats to public health. The courts are all that matter. My opinion and your opinion of what is and is not constitutional is totally irrelevant. For example, if the federal courts ruled somehow that every American had a constitutional right to a Texan wiping their ass for them, then they would have that constitutional right regardless of the fact it's nowhere in the constitution.

It is not surprising that you are not able to cite any of those alleged court cases, while I can. The Supreme Court in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) held that the right to travel without government restriction is one of those “privileges or immunities” of every American. In order to restrict the liberty of anyone both the States and the federal government must require procedural due process. That means a trial for every person they wish to restrict or confine.

Furthermore, it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the State legislatures to even make laws "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," much less attempt to enforce them.
 
It is not surprising that you are not able to cite any of those alleged court cases, while I can. The Supreme Court in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) held that the right to travel without government restriction is one of those “privileges or immunities” of every American. In order to restrict the liberty of anyone both the States and the federal government must require procedural due process. That means a trial for every person they wish to restrict or confine.

Furthermore, it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the State legislatures to even make laws "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," much less attempt to enforce them.
There are no absolute rights in the United States. All rights are balanced against competing rights and government interests. Compelling government interests can justify a restriction of rights - this has always been this case, and is still the case today.

U.S. v. Wheeler stands for the right of interstate travel. I.e. Texas cannot ban Californians from traveling to Texas, or vice versa. It has nothing to do with states limiting travel within their own borders. Laws restricting interstate travel must pass strict scrutiny - what that means, however, is that laws restricting even interstate travel can be valid as long as they are necessary to serve compelling government interests. The right to interstate travel, again, is not absolute.

As far as intrastate travel, the extent of that right is unclear. The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that intrastate travel is a fundamental right. But even granting that it is, laws restricting intrastate travel such as stay at home orders would still be constitutional if they pass the strict scrutiny test. There is a strong argument that stay at home orders meet that test.
 
It is not surprising that you are not able to cite any of those alleged court cases, while I can. The Supreme Court in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) held that the right to travel without government restriction is one of those “privileges or immunities” of every American. In order to restrict the liberty of anyone both the States and the federal government must require procedural due process. That means a trial for every person they wish to restrict or confine.

Furthermore, it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the State legislatures to even make laws "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," much less attempt to enforce them.

The articles list several court cases where quarantines have been upheld in a state's or locality's borders.
 
Not really. Viruses spread quickly in population dense areas under most circumstances. Return flights from abroad were a federal disaster, as well. I'm sure you've seen the pictures.

New York and Cuomo are dense
 
It's up to the states. The same goes for shutting stuff down. We have a Constitution that lays such things out quite clearly.

It's gonna have to be up to the States. Trump has total authority but no responsibility.
 
Then New York already owes us a **** ton of money for the damage their residents have caused to the nation.

Helix doesn't care about "those lives" only those killed by actions that they don't support. Cuomo is going to get his pass.
 
The articles list several court cases where quarantines have been upheld in a state's or locality's borders.

Yet you are still unable to name a single one. Further demonstrating that you are deliberately lying. I've demonstrated the Supreme Court sides with my position, that this quarantine is a violation of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. You have failed to do the same because you can't. All you have are deliberate lies.
 
It's up to the states. The same goes for shutting stuff down. We have a Constitution that lays such things out quite clearly.

Nope. Its you.
 
Yet you are still unable to name a single one. Further demonstrating that you are deliberately lying. I've demonstrated the Supreme Court sides with my position, that this quarantine is a violation of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. You have failed to do the same because you can't. All you have are deliberate lies.

You have constructed an alternate reality for yourself and just like with most self-delusions, you are now angry and accusing others of lying when you are challenged on it. The fact is, we have stay at home orders across the country, but they aren't really being challenged in the courts.

In the landmark compulsory vaccination case, Jacobson v. Mass 1905, SCOTUS held that individual freedom must be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state in matters concerning public health. SCOTUS rejected the arguments that you are using in that case. In fact, the only significant court challenge to the 2020 stay at home orders was in Texas where the Fifth Circuit of the Court of Appeals upheld a Texas regulation halting abortions during the state's stay at home order, and cited that 1905 decision as presidence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom