Coronavirus Thread

[LibertyTurns]

He’s old enough to not have to worry about career suicide. Somebody shut him up asap.

 

[takethepoints]

When they close churches and refuse to allow citizens to congregate, then they are violating the US Constitution, and those are measures that have been taken thus far. In fact, when the Governor of NJ closed houses of worship, he was asked "what about the Bill of Rights?" His response was that he didn't even consider the Bill of Rights. Well, duhh, he HAS to consider the Bill of Rights, because it is part of the US Constitution, and he is bound by law to follow the Constitution. We fought a war in the 19th century over states doing their own thing, and, although everybody says that thing was slavery, slavery was still legal according the Constitution at that time. The war was actually started because the federal government said that secession was not allowed, and they were determined to preserve the Union.

Well, no, he doesn't, as long as there are general restrictions on all meetings religious or secular that are deemed necessary due to a public emergency. State governments can't single out meetings for religious purposes to get special treatment, but a general ban is perfectly permissible constitutionally. If you could show that religious meetings were treated differently - and, btw, this doesn't mean that the cops break religious services up because people won't disperse voluntarily - then they'd be grounds for a suit. But exercise (that's what this is under) isn't breached when a disease requires congregations to disperse to avoid infection of the rest of the community.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Got the ribbon or medal, now it’s time to go home. Some government contractors are going to have a fantastic year.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...pitals-went-largely-unused-will-be-shut-down/

 

[takethepoints]

The quote is directly from the Constitution itself: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript, Article I, Section 9.

I skimmed your link; none of the emergency situations have to do with a pandemic. Actually, none of it has to do with suspending the Constitution. Instead, it says the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is "that only unreasonable searches are prohibited," which leads me back to my original point of stating that I don't believe suspension of any of the constitutional rights due to a pandemic has decisively (or if at all) been tested in court.

Actually, it was. In 1905. See:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11

and for the present applications:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/poli...bson-supreme-court-abortion-rights/index.html

Interesting that the case was used to restrict abortion rights, but, as Biskupic (who, btw, is probably the best reporter on legal matters in the US) points out, the case is alive and well.

I used the 4th amendment as an example of how the BoR is stretched, not as something specific to the pandemic.

 

[gthxxxx]

In reference to the very recent Covid related Texas abortion rights case, this is what the Appeals Court Justice said:"Jacobson instructs that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency," wrote Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan for the majority.

Actually, it was. In 1905. See:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11

and for the present applications:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/poli...bson-supreme-court-abortion-rights/index.html

Interesting that the case was used to restrict abortion rights, but, as Biskupic (who, btw, is probably the best reporter on legal matters in the US) points out, the case is alive and well.

I used the 4th amendment as an example of how the BoR is stretched, not as something specific to the pandemic.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, I skimmed the text of the Jacobson case found here: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep197/usrep197011/usrep197011.pdf. This paragraph seems to me to best summarize its decision. The last part highlighted in bold by me though seems as if the justices wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by -an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of. the State. If such be the privilege of a minority then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be' an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.

 

[takethepoints]

Here's something interesting on opinion in Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida about re-opening:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...g-their-states-faster-than-their-voters-want/

So we'll see how that plays out in terms of people responding to the change in policy. You can lead a horse to water …

Btw, this article was linked in the post:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-in-congress/D7735FCF39B843B9F3269FD39362FD66

Yep. Politicians make a sometimes fatal assumption about their constituents. They are usually far more ideologically inclined then their constituents, but they assume that since they were elected they must reflect their constituents views. Nope. Usually, people vote according to either party id or in terms of some particular issue they have an interest in. It's easy for them to get out of step.

 

[684Bee]

Got the ribbon or medal, now it’s time to go home. Some government contractors are going to have a fantastic year.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...pitals-went-largely-unused-will-be-shut-down/

How dare you. We are only allowed to look at what is going on in NYC.

 

[684Bee]

nm

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Well, no, he doesn't, as long as there are general restrictions on all meetings religious or secular that are deemed necessary due to a public emergency. State governments can't single out meetings for religious purposes to get special treatment, but a general ban is perfectly permissible constitutionally. If you could show that religious meetings were treated differently - and, btw, this doesn't mean that the cops break religious services up because people won't disperse voluntarily - then they'd be grounds for a suit. But exercise (that's what this is under) isn't breached when a disease requires congregations to disperse to avoid infection of the rest of the community.

When liquor and pot stores are allowed to remain open, and LOTTO is allowed to continue, and a wealth of other non-essential businesses or organizations are deemed somehow essential and allowed to continue, then there is no "general ban", and such singling out is definitely not constitutionally permissible. Either shut down everything, or shut down nothing.

 

[684Bee]

When liquor and pot stores are allowed to remain open, and LOTTO is allowed to continue, and a wealth of other non-essential businesses or organizations are deemed somehow essential and allowed to continue, then there is no "general ban", and such singling out is definitely not constitutionally permissible. Either shut down everything, or shut down nothing.

The fact that any American is comfortable with the notion of govt deeming who is essential and who is non-essential is so disturbing.

 

[LibertyTurns]

How dare you. We are only allowed to look at what is going on in NYC.

If Cuomo and DeBlasio weren’t such idiots, they’d have either sent the coronavirus patients to the tent cities or taken the high risk nursing home residents to them. These dudes are constantly screwing up but somehow the media’s in love with them. They packed people into a small number of hospitals to generate a media circus for political gain instead of effectively using the immense resources they were provided. Damn near every decision they’ve made has been wrong. C’mon, use your awesome decision making skills to decide what to do & do the opposite or call up another Governor/Mayor that knows what to do and let them tell you. It will all turn out better that way. They don’t have to sit there are F up every damn day so we can all shake our heads in amazement at how clueless they are.

Well at least I know what to expect tomorrow.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I wonder how many remember that in the midst of the deadly Hong Kong Flu pandemic of the late 60s, Woodstock was still held.

https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

Two key lines from the article:
"Which raises the question: why was this different? We will be trying to figure this one out for decades."
"The contrast between 1968 and 2020 couldn’t be more striking. They were smart. We are idiots. Or at least our governments are."

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

"The Sounds of Sirens"

 

[takethepoints]

When liquor and pot stores are allowed to remain open, and LOTTO is allowed to continue, and a wealth of other non-essential businesses or organizations are deemed somehow essential and allowed to continue, then there is no "general ban", and such singling out is definitely not constitutionally permissible. Either shut down everything, or shut down nothing.

Well, yes, there is. As I've pointed out here before, it is a lot easier to manage people in a regular store then people at a religious service. Also, you can restrict the number of people in a store a lot easier then in a church. If you have a general "no gathering of more then 10 people" order in force, you cover all such gatherings, whether in a pot store or your local church. Then you get to break them up, something people usually comply with voluntarily. Further, in an emergency it is up to governments to determine what's essential and what isn't. You don't like it? Do something about it in November or you could try the courts.

This is perfectly permissible constitutionally, in these circumstances. In others, not so much.

 

[takethepoints]

The fact that any American is comfortable with the notion of govt deeming who is essential and who is non-essential is so disturbing.

Get used to it. We've been doing it since the Founding.

 

[takethepoints]

Interesting. Out of curiosity, I skimmed the text of the Jacobson case found here: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep197/usrep197011/usrep197011.pdf. This paragraph seems to me to best summarize its decision. The last part highlighted in bold by me though seems as if the justices wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

They often do. The people who wrote the Constitution wanted it that way. They knew that what they put together would have to adapt to new circumstances. Wish they had foreseen more of them, however.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Well, yes, there is. As I've pointed out here before, it is a lot easier to manage people in a regular store then people at a religious service. Also, you can restrict the number of people in a store a lot easier then in a church. If you have a general "no gathering of more then 10 people" order in force, you cover all such gatherings, whether in a pot store or your local church. Then you get to break them up, something people usually comply with voluntarily. Further, in an emergency it is up to governments to determine what's essential and what isn't. You don't like it? Do something about it in November or you could try the courts.

This is perfectly permissible constitutionally, in these circumstances. In others, not so much.

Putting forth guidelines is one thing, and something that most responsible people would follow, but issuing mandates? Sorry, don't buy it. That is the basis of a police state.
And read this article, which I have already posted for an idea of different ways things have been handled --- https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Putting forth guidelines is one thing, and something that most responsible people would follow, but issuing mandates? Sorry, don't buy it. That is the basis of a police state.
And read this article, which I have already posted for an idea of different ways things have been handled --- https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/

Well remember, courts said separate but equal was okay. They also said in the Kelo case that they can seize private property and give it to another private party if that second party can generate more tax revenue. The courts created a right to privacy. Just because courts make rulings doesn’t make them infallible.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

 

[bobongo]

The fact that any American is comfortable with the notion of govt deeming who is essential and who is non-essential is so disturbing.

Well, since it's supposedly a government that's by, for, and of the people, and since it is a pandemic, I can see it even if I personally don't always agree with all of its decisions. In principle, I don't see anything that's so disturbing here. The commissioners in the town I live in made mostly reasonable decisions along these lines, IMO.