Today I didn't fly

wrbix said:
During a declared National Emergency usual rights can be suspended......but suspect it would go all the way to SCOTUS for their usual 5 to 4 decision.
Click to expand...

The laws of Congress are subservient to the Constitution. They cannot make laws that countermand it. The laws of States are even more subservient to the Constitution and the authority of cities is a subset of a State's authority.

I suspect they would go even stronger than 5 to 4. The precedence this sets would be that a Governor can suspend the Constitution. Could they do this (or other Amendments) during other emergencies, say for a flu outbreak? Maybe a hurricane? Aftermath of a bad snow storm? I hope that all the Justices would recognize the danger of allowing states and municipalities to suspend parts of Constitution under emergency authority.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ah, but technically there isn't any breakage of the first amendment here, because the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."
Click to expand...

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment binds the rest of the Amendments onto the States and by extension to subservient governments of the States.
 
bflynn said:
I agree he is, as is everyone who attended. But the govt is expressly prevented from stopping the free exercise of religion for any reason. There is no “except” clause in the first amendment.
Click to expand...

I would say that if they want to attend in huge numbers, they will be forced to quarantine in place at the church for 14 days ...
 
as long as everyone treats the threat like you think they should, we’ll get through this.

it’s ok to go to the grocery store with 100 people, but don’t go to church, or fly solo....
 
What will happen when someone shoots someone for invading their 6 foot space. It’s probably already happened, if not, won’t be long.
 
Sta
bflynn said:
The laws of Congress are subservient to the Constitution. They cannot make laws that countermand it. The laws of States are even more subservient to the Constitution and the authority of cities is a subset of a State's authority.

I suspect they would go even stronger than 5 to 4. The precedence this sets would be that a Governor can suspend the Constitution. Could they do this (or other Amendments) during other emergencies, say for a flu outbreak? Maybe a hurricane? Aftermath of a bad snow storm? I hope that all the Justices would recognize the danger of allowing states and municipalities to suspend parts of Constitution under emergency authority.
Click to expand...
states and municipalities?
Nationally declared emergency.
 
There is no national quarantine, nor a national order preventing peaceful assembly.

Yes, I am a constitutionalist and a fervent supporter of law.
 
Salty said:
it’s ok to go to the grocery store with 100 people, but don’t go to church, or fly solo....
Click to expand...
In some locations grocery stores are limiting the number of people allowed in the store at once.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
In some locations grocery stores are limiting the number of people allowed in the store at once.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because standing in line outside is much better. Yeah, I know, 6 feet apart. Does anyone actually think that makes sense?
 
Church buildings are covered by local zoning regulations and fire codes, no? Seems the local fire marshal could set the building's maximum occupancy to, say, no more than five people.
 
Salty said:
Yeah, because standing in line outside is much better. Yeah, I know, 6 feet apart. Does anyone actually think that makes sense?
Click to expand...
At one store (MicroCenter) they had everyone wait in their cars and took your cell phone number. Then they called you when it was your turn to go in. That makes much more sense than trusting the uninformed person breathing on your neck. There are a lot of people out there who are clueless, either by choice or ignorance.
 
iflyvfr said:
At one store (MicroCenter) they had everyone wait in their cars and took your cell phone number. Then they called you when it was your turn to go in. That makes much more sense than trusting the uninformed person breathing on your neck. There are a lot of people out there who are clueless, either by choice or ignorance.
Click to expand...
And then you go in and touch the same counters and payment devices and speak to the same person everyone else did, less than 6 feet away, then probably take the receipt from them. But you sat in your car like an idiot waiting to get to that point. The new world is so smart.

stop making me think about it, it’s easy easier to take if you just blindly comply.
 
bflynn said:
The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment binds the rest of the Amendments onto the States and by extension to subservient governments of the States.
Click to expand...

If this were truly enforced then all the states that have laws that violate the 2nd Amendment (never mind the federal laws that violate it) would have to rescind them. "shall not be infringed" is a limitation on government, not the people.
 
bflynn said:
I agree he is, as is everyone who attended. But the govt is expressly prevented from stopping the free exercise of religion for any reason. There is no “except” clause in the first amendment.
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

What we have in the public-health orders is a prohibition on gatherings of people. If the prohibition applied only to religion, it's obvious that this would violate the First Amendment. But what about a prohibition that applies to everyone, and not just to religion? If one takes the position that the free-exercise clause is absolute, what would stop a religion from practicing human sacrifice, in violation of the law against murder? I think that scenario illustrates the danger in taking an absolutist view of the free-exercise clause. And it's not a large logical leap from that to a religious gathering endangering the lives of others during a pandemic.

It could also be argued that exempting religion from a prohibition that applies generally would be singling religion out for special treatment. That would seem to violate the establishment clause.
 
Salty said:
And then you go in and touch the same counters and payment devices and speak to the same person everyone else did, less than 6 feet away, then probably take the receipt from them. But you sat in your car like an idiot waiting to get to that point. The new world is so smart.
Click to expand...
Yes you do touch the same counters and payment devices and speak to the same people. And you may well end up with some amount of virus on your hands.

There is good indication that viral load is a factor with this pathogen. Stand 6' away and speak with someone for a minute or so and you may pick up some amount of the virus. But the load will likely be too small to cause an infection. Stand closer to them, talk longer with them and you could have more exposure which would make infection more likely. I think people have the perception that if one little individual virus molecule finds its way up their nose, they're done for. That does not seem to be the case.

Don't stand and chat with the checkout person for 20 minutes and don't touch your face while you're in the store unless you use hand sanitizer or go wash your hands first and your risk of infection will be incredibly low. A mask, if worn properly, is very effective at helping remind you to not touch your face. Keep your hands away from your face while in the store. Wash or sanitize your hands after touching surfaces and don't have extended conversations with anyone and you will be fine.

You can think they're silly and pointless all you want, but the fact remains that rates of infection are going down in places where distancing precautions have been put in place.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Yes you do touch the same counters and payment devices and speak to the same people. And you may well end up with some amount of virus on your hands.

There is good indication that viral load is a factor with this pathogen. Stand 6' away and speak with someone for a minute or so and you may pick up some amount of the virus. But the load will likely be too small to cause an infection. Stand closer to them, talk longer with them and you could have more exposure which would make infection more likely. I think people have the perception that if one little individual virus molecule finds its way up their nose, they're done for. That does not seem to be the case.

Don't stand and chat with the checkout person for 20 minutes and don't touch your face while you're in the store unless you use hand sanitizer or go wash your hands first and your risk of infection will be incredibly low. A mask, if worn properly, is very effective at helping remind you to not touch your face. Keep your hands away from your face while in the store. Wash or sanitize your hands after touching surfaces and don't have extended conversations with anyone and you will be fine.

You can think they're silly and pointless all you want, but the fact remains that rates of infection are going down in places where distancing precautions have been put in place.
Click to expand...
That's ok, we just keep pulling the tourniquet tighter and tighter....

Cuz we weren't killing the economy quite completely enough yet.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...sential-items-select-states-2020-4-1029075941
 
Salty said:
That's ok, we just keep pulling the tourniquet tighter and tighter....

Cuz we weren't killing the economy quite completely enough yet.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...sential-items-select-states-2020-4-1029075941
Click to expand...
My sister had breast cancer. He doctor prescribed chemo therapy. She went to the first treatment. It made her feel sick so she never went back. She bought into alternative medicine and started listening to every whack job she could find. In doing so she spared herself the incredible amount of pain and suffering that chemo brings with it. She never had to endure any of the distress of chemo so in that sense, her alternative treatment was very effective. It wasn't effective at all in curing the very survivable form of cancer she had may she rest in peace. But yeah she never had to go through chemo so there's that I guess. Pick your poison.
 
It seems to me that the best thing we could do to enable lifting of restrictions, and thereby improve the economy, is to do enough testing to determine who has the virus and who doesn't. That would require seriously ramping up the availability of testing. I'm still hearing that even people with symptoms are unable to get tested in many cases.
 
Palmpilot said:
It seems to me that the best thing we could do to enable lifting of restrictions, and thereby improve the economy, is to do enough testing to determine who has the virus and who doesn't. That would require seriously ramping up the availability of testing. I'm still hearing that even people with symptoms are unable to get tested in many cases.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ards-for-americans-are-being-discussed-178784

An interesting idea, although I am sure that there will be people howling at even the suggestion it is possibly being considered. If you want the economy to be opened up, it can really only be opened up by those who have some form of (possibly temporary if the virus mutates sufficiently) immunity.
 
Palmpilot said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

What we have in the public-health orders is a prohibition on gatherings of people. If the prohibition applied only to religion, it's obvious that this would violate the First Amendment. But what about a prohibition that applies to everyone, and not just to religion? If one takes the position that the free-exercise clause is absolute, what would stop a religion from practicing human sacrifice, in violation of the law against murder? I think that scenario illustrates the danger in taking an absolutist view of the free-exercise clause. And it's not a large logical leap from that to a religious gathering endangering the lives of others during a pandemic.

It could also be argued that exempting religion from a prohibition that applies generally would be singling religion out for special treatment. That would seem to violate the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

So you argue that as long as everyone is equally infringed, it's ok? It doesn't matter if the government unjustly tramples on personal rights as long as they trample on everyone's right? They can suspend reasonable searches as long as they search everyone? Take away arms as long as they take away everyone's arms? Compel self incrimination as long as they force everyone to self incriminate?

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. If the government must "permit" religions to gather, then they you mean by default the government is prohibiting them. You are engaging in circular logic, presuming that religious gatherings are not allowed in order to prove that religious gatherings must not be allowed.
 
bflynn said:
So you argue that as long as everyone is equally infringed, it's ok? It doesn't matter if the government unjustly tramples on personal rights as long as they trample on everyone's right? They can suspend reasonable searches as long as they search everyone? Take away arms as long as they take away everyone's arms? Compel self incrimination as long as they force everyone to self incriminate?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter that an absolutist interpretation of the free-exercise clause would permit religions to practice human sacrifice?
 
Palmpilot said:
It doesn't matter that an absolutist interpretation of the free-exercise clause would permit religions to practice human sacrifice?
Click to expand...

If the subject being killed is willing, I say go for it. I would also question the sanity of someone willing to be a human sacrifice. I cannot think anyone willingly wants to get thrown into a volcano.

But then looking at something like Jonesboro or Heaven's Gate, I have a hard time saying that people should not be allowed unusual beliefs. If people believe God is riding on a comet and will take them away when they commit suicide at the comet's perigee, is it your business to tell them no? If so, why is this unusual belief different than the dozens of others I could name?

Don't say "they can't they hurt themselves", because in their eyes, you are hurting them by denying them salvation. Absent arrogance, how do you know they're not right?
 
Last edited:
I never said anything about willing subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top