Neverending Covid-19 Coronavirus

debianlinux said:
I think there's a pretty big gap between making strong suggestions from a position of leadership and making unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable, mandates. I am glad people are protesting this. I wish they would heed suggestions and I get why people in power may feel the need for mandates but ultimately it is wrong and should be protested.
Click to expand...
You're saying that stay at home orders are unenforcable and unconstitutional? That's a pretty bold claim to state as if it is black and white fact. In your opinion, Governors are only allowed to make suggestions?
 
dhodo said:
You're saying that stay at home orders are unenforcable and unconstitutional? That's a pretty bold claim to state as if it is black and white fact. In your opinion, Governors are only allowed to make suggestions?
Click to expand...
Not really that bold. There is a strong argument being made (not in mainstream media) that these mandates are beyond the powers enumerated to the government. Eventually the courts will weigh in on these issues.
 
debianlinux said:
There are constitutionally protected rights to travel.
Click to expand...
Chucktshoes said:
Not really that bold. There is a strong argument being made (not in mainstream media) that these mandates are beyond the powers enumerated to the government. Eventually the courts will weigh in on these issues.
Click to expand...
It is bold when it is pulled out of nowhere and not based on similar previous cases. The last case I have read about very similar to this was a case in the early 1900s for mandatory smallpox vaccinations and the supreme court upheld the right of Massachusetts. If you can provide some actual cases that support the broad assertion that stay at home orders in the interest of a public health emergency are unconstitutional, please do.

That is a weak argument when there is precedence in the court for similar mandates. If they can prove it is egregious and that they overstep the true interest of public health, then it won't stand up, but from what I have seen of mandates so far, that seems unlikely. I think lawsuits arguing that some of the "essential" businesses should also be forced to close might have a better chance in court.
 
dhodo said:
It is bold when it is pulled out of nowhere and not based on similar previous cases. The last case I have read about very similar to this was a case in the early 1900s for mandatory smallpox vaccinations and the supreme court upheld the right of Massachusetts. If you can provide some actual cases that support the broad assertion that stay at home orders in the interest of a public health emergency is unconstitutional, please do.

That is a weak argument when there is precedence. The court for similar mandates. If they can prove it is egregious and that they overstep the true interest of public health, then it won't stand up, but from what I have seen of mandates so far, that seems unlikely. I think lawsuits arguing that some of the "essential" businesses should also be forced to close might have a better chance in court.
Click to expand...
Precisely because there is lack of precedence the letter of the law is all we really have. In this case the presumption must be that people have the right to travel unless otherwise proven differently in a court of law. Clearly, the ability to remove or otherwise restrict this right would have to involve a great deal of controls to ensure it is not abused, Those controls do not exist and thus it is not at all an overstatement to suggest that any effort to curtail the right is an abuse. If controls did exist then they wouldn't be floundering about what the actual penalties are.

I'm not advocating people defy the orders but I am not under some illusion that the orders are somehow not a desperate attempt to present as power.
 
debianlinux said:
Precisely because there is lack of precedence the letter of the law is all we really have. In this case the presumption must be that people have the right to travel unless otherwise proven differently in a court of law. Clearly, the ability to remove or otherwise restrict this right would have to involve a great deal of controls to ensure it is not abused, Those controls do not exist and thus it is not at all an overstatement to suggest that any effort to curtail the right is an abuse. If controls did exist then they wouldn't be floundering about what the actual penalties are.

I'm not advocating people defy the orders but I am not under some illusion that the orders are somehow not a desperate attempt to present as power.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of precedence for restricting travel during disasters and health emergencies. The only difference is that this is everywhere and much longer. Where do you live in NC? (rhetorical) Never heard of a mandatory evacuation?
 
debianlinux said:
Precisely because there is lack of precedence the letter of the law is all we really have. In this case the presumption must be that people have the right to travel unless otherwise proven differently in a court of law. Clearly, the ability to remove or otherwise restrict this right would have to involve a great deal of controls to ensure it is not abused, Those controls do not exist and thus it is not at all an overstatement to suggest that any effort to curtail the right is an abuse. If controls did exist then they wouldn't be floundering about what the actual penalties are.

I'm not advocating people defy the orders but I am not under some illusion that the orders are somehow not a desperate attempt to present as power.
Click to expand...
This is anti-vaxxer 2.0. If you want to be a part of society there are laws that you are required to follow, the well being of society supersede your personal desires. If you choose to not participate civilization that is completely fine, there is plenty or unclaimed wildness in Alaska that beckons your call but if you decide to take part in society then you need to abide by the rules of law as they stand. The governor of the state of Michigan is within her rights to enforce a mandatory shelter in place order. If you do not like it you can vote to change the law or vote to change the representatives that change the law or you can go somewhere else.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
This is anti-vaxxer 2.0. If you want to be a part of society there are laws that you are required to follow, the well being of society supersede your personal desires. If you choose to not participate civilization that is completely fine, there is plenty or unclaimed wildness in Alaska that beckons your call but if you decide to take part in society then you need to abide by the rules of law as they stand. The governor of the state of Michigan is within her rights to enforce a mandatory shelter in place order. If you do not like it you can vote to change the law or vote to change the representatives that change the law or you can go somewhere else.
Click to expand...
It’s not an anti-vax level of argument. It is entirely appropriate and justified to question and resist the actions of government that one believes are wrong. The exact argument you are using here was used against the opponents of Jim Crow. Just because you don’t like the reason civil disobedience is being employed doesn’t invalidate it’s use as a tactic against what one believes to be government malfeasance.
 
Chucktshoes said:
It’s not an anti-vax level of argument. It is entirely appropriate and justified to question and resist the actions of government that one believes are wrong. The exact argument you are using here was used against the opponents of Jim Crow. Just because you don’t like the reason civil disobedience is being employed doesn’t invalidate it’s use as a tactic against what one believes to be government malfeasance.
Click to expand...
They are wrong about it being against the law and they are endangering everyone that they come in contact with, including people who don't believe in their protest, which is exactly why the law is on the side of Michigan.

Tell them to come down here and protest on the beach during the next hurricane. Hopefully we can ensure that no emergency workers risk their lives trying to help them. Luckily, they wouldn't be allowed over the bridge.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
My mom just shared a video "documentary" from Epoch Times on the Coronavirus. I had to spend 10 minutes explaining how Epoch Times is literally banned from advertising on Facebook because of their foreign ties and disinformation campaigns. To which she responded with a few hmmm's and a nice "Facebook and Google control a lot of what people see and believe".

I can't.
Click to expand...
OMG - my mom shared the same damn thing last night. I was like, that's the one somebody else's mom shared that they mentioned on the forum earlier, LOL...
Indymisanthrope said:
Anyway -- moms gonna mom.
Click to expand...
The Commish said:
Moms are most definitely gonna mom.
Click to expand...
All of our moms really momming it up these days.
 
dhodo said:
They are wrong about it being against the law and they are endangering everyone that they come in contact with, including people who don't believe in their protest, which is exactly why the law is on the side of Michigan.
Click to expand...
The courts, and/or voters, will ultimately decide that. I’m not comfortable making any sort of definitive statements on the legality of any of the measures at this point.

I will say that regardless of the advisability of the protests in a medical context, I find that the idea of legally sanctioning folks engaged in political protest to be on questionable legal footing.
 
Chucktshoes said:
It’s not an anti-vax level of argument. It is entirely appropriate and justified to question and resist the actions of government that one believes are wrong. The exact argument you are using here was used against the opponents of Jim Crow. Just because you don’t like the reason civil disobedience is being employed doesn’t invalidate it’s use as a tactic against what one believes to be government malfeasance.
Click to expand...
Of course they have the right to protest, just as those brave souls during the civil rights era had the right to protest, the State can still choose to enforce their laws (as unfortunately many municipalities chose to do during the civil rights era) then it would be up to a court to decide if their right to protest supersedes the well being of society. None of the bill of Rights are absolute, you have the right to bear arms but and can’t buy a tank*, you have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and I would be willing to bet you have the right to assemble and protest but you don’t have the right to defy a shelter-in-place order when there is an ongoing global pandemic.

*substitute Nukes if necessary
 
Last edited:
Chucktshoes said:
The courts, and/or voters, will ultimately decide that. I’m not comfortable making any sort of definitive statements on the legality of any of the measures at this point.

I will say that regardless of the advisability of the protests in a medical context, I find that the idea of legally sanctioning folks engaged in political protest to be on questionable legal footing.
Click to expand...
Your rights go out the window when you endanger others. I don't see why you would expect a different outcome in this case than other cases of restricted travel, as in the example I gave.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Of course they have the right to protest, just as those brave souls during the civil rights era had the right to protest, the State can still choose to enforce their laws (as unfortunately many municipalities chose to do during the civil rights era) then it would be up to a court to decide if their right to protest supersedes the well being of society. None of the bill of Rights are absolute, you have the right to bear arms but and can’t buy a tank, you have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and I would be willing to bet you have the right to assemble and protest but you don’t have the right to defy a shelter-in-place order when there is an ongoing global pandemic.
Click to expand...

Actually, I totally can buy a tank. There are quite a few privately owned tanks in the US. A private party in the US just bought over 50 F-18 fighter jets. The only thing keeping me from owning fun stuff like artillery is money.

As to the rest, we will see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top