Meanwhile, it seems more people that you might think have had it with all the bullshit.
Even though some of that is just a normal 4th of July in the Mexican neighborhoods in L.A., it was the same way all over the state.
Meanwhile, it seems more people that you might think have had it with all the bullshit.
Even though some of that is just a normal 4th of July in the Mexican neighborhoods in L.A., it was the same way all over the state.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Just in case you don't know who this cherrypicked crackpot is:Originally Posted by steelreserve
https://www.tpusa.com/aboutSince its founding, Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build themost organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on high school and college campuses across the country. With a presence on over 2,000 campuses, Turning Point USA is the largest and fastest-growing youth organization in America.
You gotta have a ton of stupid to go from cancelled events due to a pandemic to celebrating America is illegal.
Using that same drool cup level logic; most states restrictions on fireworks sales and individuals setting them off is an assualt on constitutional democracy.
There have been fireworks everywhere all summer so far. Not surprising that this weekend it was bananas. My neighborhood sounded and looked like a cheap war movie. People had a good time. It wasn't an encoded political action.
I'm so tired of the conservative media telling me how to feel and react about everything.
Yes, I'm sure the video and all the other identical ones from major news outlets are fake because you don't like the guy who retweeted it. It's a good thing you're not allowed to vote yet.
Well no, actually, the government cancelled all the fireworks shows but specifically said protesting is ok. Only for certain causes, though! The City of Los Angeles posted a warning not to gather in groups on the Fourth of July, and on July 3 tweeted out their support for a large gathering of BLM protesters downtown.
Perhaps the excessive amount of DIY fireworks shows were simply people having fun and filling the void left by the "official" shows being cancelled. But pretending there was not and still is not a horribly slanted public policy about the type of public gatherings that are allowed here is just fooling yourself. You're going to allow one, you have to allow the other. Sorry dude, that's just how it works.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Meanwhile, let's see - what's the latest update from all those scientists and epidemiologists who are right all the time?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...iew/index.html
Let's see ... death count down for 10 weeks in a row ("Two weeks to slow the spread!") - check
Most infections among people under age 50 with a death rate of almost zero, exactly what you would want if you want the population immune - check
COVID-19 on the edge of losing "epidemic" classification by the CDC because it no longer meets the definition, and expected to be declared so in the coming weeks - check
Hospital admissions continuing to flatten for the 10th consecutive week despite media reports that they are skyrocketing - check
All 50 states with "low" activity and 47 with "minimal" - check
It's over, dude. Stick a fork in it. There is no "second wave." It is all political now - just people keeping it up because they want to believe despite the overwhelming evidence. It is a religious fervor now.
See you Space Cowboy ...
The anti-science crowd. Don't you have a tweet from some cherrypicked crackpot to back you up?
- - - Updated - - -
Just how far down in the sand is your head? Can you see China yet?
- - - Updated - - -
I've never seen so many private fireworks set off here in Boston (America's Athens, home of the worlds greatest sports dynasties) as I saw this year.
I'm sure that was just loyal patriots protesting government oppression.
Just people in the media wanting to keep this alive to try and destroy Trump's chances and scare people and wannabe dictators posing as governors wanting to keep this alive so they can continue to wield authority they have no right to have.Meanwhile, let's see - what's the latest update from all those scientists and epidemiologists who are right all the time?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...iew/index.html
Let's see ... death count down for 10 weeks in a row ("Two weeks to slow the spread!") - check
Most infections among people under age 50 with a death rate of almost zero, exactly what you would want if you want the population immune - check
COVID-19 on the edge of losing "epidemic" classification by the CDC because it no longer meets the definition, and expected to be declared so in the coming weeks - check
Hospital admissions continuing to flatten for the 10th consecutive week despite media reports that they are skyrocketing - check
All 50 states with "low" activity and 47 with "minimal" - check
It's over, dude. Stick a fork in it. There is no "second wave." It is all political now - just people keeping it up because they want to believe despite the overwhelming evidence. It is a religious fervor now.
"The whole idea of emergency power statutes, especially in states without continuously serving legislatures, is that emergencies sometimes come up while the legislature isn’t there to help hold the reins of the sleigh. This isn’t new. It isn’t unconstitutional. It’s the way things work and are supposed to work in state government."
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-constitution
It is actually an interesting question about what various government has been authorized to do and not do. Interestingly; most of the court challenges have been laughed out of court.
So while we might not agree with the decisions, the power to make them is baked into the system. Which raises the question of how we might wish to limit executive authority at the state and federal level moving forward. Since about 2000 or so, the preference has been to consistently strengthen federal and state executive power at the expense of the legislative branches.
It is not a question of whether the governor of a state can use emergency powers to make rules in the short term. It is whether those rules are allowed to suspend the U.S. Constitution. They are not; it applies at all times and under all circumstances, and many Supreme Court cases have affirmed that, and there are federal laws specifically addressing it.
I guess there is still the question of how long and how far a governor's emergency powers can go ... seeing as how it has been several months and there is nothing preventing the normal legislative process from working, it is becoming an increasingly thin argument whether "emergency powers" are valid at all. I believe your state in particular was one of the first where the courts declared no, they are not.
Interesting as that may be to argue in court one day, right now the law is pretty clear that at least half a dozen governors ought to be in jail at this very moment.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Not sure that is correct. All the cases, and there have been several, challenging exactly what you are talking about failed spectacularly. That was the entire point of my post. But, why read anything...
How about having to draw your blackout shades during WWII, was that against the constitution?
The mayor was having a fit.
I read the same things you do ... you personally live in a state where it has not "failed spectacularly." The one directly to the south of you is another.
If anything, the inconsistency with which the law has been applied reflects the politicization of the court system as well, e.g., just because you are liberal does not mean the governor's order, or your decision, is correct, no matter how hard you want it to be. Although we certainly know they will try to go ahead anyway and dare you to do anything about it.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Those are state procedural challenges. Not US Constitution challenges.
Right, and even those are beginning to succeed. The Constitutional challenges have been a mixed bag of one court upholding them, another court overruling on appeal, and another deciding that the governor's order was unconstitutional but the ruling only applies to this one specific individual.
As far as I know, the only constitutional challenge that made it into any kind of federal court was California's ban on religious gatherings, which the court regrettably fucked up badly. Although it has been ruled that our governor's executive orders are not laws but suggestions - to which his response has been to have three-letter state agencies enforce them anyway as if they were laws. Wait for someone to sue him over them; he doesn't care - he doesn't have to pay to defend himself, and it buys him another month or so of unfettered power while it goes through the courts, after which point he just makes another illegal order and starts the process over again. It is a disgusting abuse of power.
It is pretty clear that in almost every state, the governor's orders violate state law and also violate the U.S. Constitution. That it is taking unacceptably long for that to be recognized does not make it any less true.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Yes and no. In Wisco, it wasn't that emergency powers were not legal/valid -- it was that this specific emergency power wasn't one that was valid beyond a specific # of days. Then less than 5 minutes after the state supreme court ruled -- all counties across the state stepped in and took up the emergency power that had been stripped from the Governor's office. This was repeatedly held to be legal, because that is why county health officials exist. Further, in Wisconsin, the whole thing was that the legislature refused to do anything. Ban, no ban, quarantine, no quarantine - didn't matter they just basically refused to go to work. This was to force the issue (just as they did with the election) to the courts. Basically, since the GOP lost the Governor's office here; they have been attempting to use the court that they spent the last 5+ years packing to strip power away from the Governor's office. Interestingly, many of these powers are ones they themselves voted to give to the Governor when a member of their party held the office.
Reading about these lawsuits across the country; they appear to have not once been successful on a US Constitutional issue. The limited success has been on procedural issues related to individual state constitutions. As to the US Constitution, I am not certain what rights anyone thinks that are being violated. The article I posted earlier makes the umbrella claim that most cases through mid-May of 2020 rested on the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Sec. 4 (The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.). As recently as June of 2019 in an opinion backed by Roberts, and as far back as the 1840's the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that this clause creates zero judicially enforceable rights beyond the obvious one that you can't turn a state into a monarchy or something. So as long as elected leaders of a state are making decisions that flow from their state constitutions...there is not a clear and obvious Constitutional issue. Further, the Wisco court ruling used no reading of the state constitution related to the Governor's office to back its decision (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...er/5187774002/) they just decided. What the entire thing rested on was the parsing of individual words regarding the procedural nature of the state health agency (https://www.natlawreview.com/article...tay-home-order). So again, the state constitutional issue(s) appear murky at best.
However, and this is where I would be willing to hear more (without devolving into a shouting match or just wispy libertarian dreams) of what Constitutional component is being violated? The Wisconsin case raised no federal issue and the federal components of the Illinois case (https://www.chicagotribune.com/coron...yza-story.html) were struck down twice I believe. And even the initial "win" in the Illinois state courts did not actually even address the issue of the Governor's legal authority to issue emergency powers based orders.
So a very clear order that whatever else may be the case, any state or local official cannot give an order depriving anyone of their Constitutional rights.TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
With laws passed the normal way, that usually just follows the standard process of judicial review and the courts either decide that the law is acceptable or it is not. If you are giving unilateral orders that take away people's rights without any review or due process, then you are on your own. This was most likely intended for things like holding police accountable for giving unlawful orders on the spot, but it applies equally to any public official who freelances and fucks up. Play extrajudicial games, win extrajudicial prizes. Note that the maximum penalty is DEATH.
Off the top of my head, there would be violations of the First Amendment rights to free assembly and religious exercise; Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment rights to a speedy trial by jury (suspended here in this city, and I am sure others have as well); 14th Amendment deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process; equal protection of the law (allowing public assemblies for certain causes but not others).
In particular, the last two were done so flagrantly and for such a long time while deliberately flaunting due process, with malice, that I really do not see how there would be any possible defense against it. The only question is whether the DOJ will just ignore it because they don't want to "make waves."
See you Space Cowboy ...
Federal courts (twice I think) ruled that the Illinois stay at home orders didn't violate 1st or 14th amendment rights. The point I am driving at is that I am not sure the numerous Constitutional issues that the fever swamps of the internet appear to be dreaming up do not seem to hold any water when presented to actual lawyers and judges. So far, not a single one has passed muster. This leads me to believe, that despite how much some like to wax poetic about the Constitution; they don't actually understand either it or the judicial perspectives that over 200 years of precedent has established.
Another example is that multiple federal courts have tossed out issues related to public assembly and pandemic. For instance, the Illinois case specifically stated that exempting religious assemblies was ok. The Wisconsin state court refused to hear a case brought by individual on Constitutional grounds arguing that it was immaterial due to the existing procedural ruling. So far, I can not find a single ruling in either a state or a federal court that has upheld one case of violations of Constitutional freedoms related to COVID. In fact, all I can find is law professors and lawyers associations just crushing the lawsuits arguments. But maybe I am not aware of other instances...
Yeah, well if anyone thinks THIS is what they meant should be acceptable when they drafted the Constitution and all these laws, they have got to be on drugs.
"Just ignore anything you want if there is ever a disease with a 99.9% survival rate! So basically go ahead and ignore anything in the Constitution any time you want! There's a loophole or a precedent - technicalities make it ok!"
Even if your take on it is even remotely accurate, it is still very sad and very disappointing that anyone could look at it and unironically say, "Yes! This is how things are SUPPOSED to work!"
See you Space Cowboy ...
Plenty of fireworks in Pennsylvania. Was left up to the organizations to keep/cancel. Hersheypark for example held a show for people in their cars. I believe Dorneypark did as well.
Again, I don't think the Constitution says what you think it says. In the last 6 months courts at all levels and across jurisdictions and the political spectrum have said it doesn't. Lawyers and scholars across the spectrum have agreed.
It is not ignoring the Constitution; it is simply that many many many (many) of the folks who claim to cherish said document have no functional understanding of how it works. Detailed breakdowns of the case law, precedents, and analysis of the current cases are available all over the place from reputable sources that bring facts and information rather than philosophical bias to the table. Again, I am not a Constitutional scholar nor will I ever claim to be. But I am interested in all this and I try to read through the issues in some detail. But I am unable to find a single test case of what you are outlining (and there have been more than a few) where the court just basically didn't laugh out loud and through their tears of laughter tell the parties bringing the suit that they don't know what they are talking about.
Interesting that in less than a half dozen posts you have gone from being certain that major laws were being broken to sorta sure that no one intended these to be laws or powers 200+ years ago. That is a smooth backpedal...ever thought of playing DB in the NFL? How are your hands?
No, I'm definitely certain that major laws have been broken.
The law says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. Regardless of what gyrations people go through to try and put their own spin on it.
It is simply disappointing to see that people will still undergo such mental gymnastics to try and justify what is clearly the largest mass violation of Constitutional liberty in at least a generation, if not ever. And with the thinnest excuse for it in history by a wide margin.
See you Space Cowboy ...
So if that is true...why have judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans said "Not at all."? Why have lawyers and Constitutional experts across the spectrum also said "Not at all."? You keep claiming something to be true with zero evidence provided. That is the part I am having difficulty understanding. I believe that I understand why you believe that violations of the Constitution have taken place. However, you seem unable or unwilling to provide external evidence to validate that opinion. And I want to stress that I mean evidence from someone with actual knowledge and expertise; not just some with a forum to shout their philosophical viewpoint On the other hand, I can find heaps of external data and evidence to make me conclude that what you are saying is not correct. And I can honestly say that this is a question I went into with very little preconceived opinions. I suspected there was no Constitutional issues because rarely are Governors that face-palmingly stupid. But I honestly didn't know. What research I have done all comes back that there isn't a Constitutional issue involved at all. Like everyone says "Nope.". What am I missing?
Good way to do it.
- - - Updated - - -
Lets be blunt about this because you don't seem to be catching on. You're a head case, full stop.
The Illinois court case found that not only did the governor exceed his power by extending the emergency order, he had no Constitutional authority to restrict movement or close businesses in the first place. The famous Michigan barber shop case was based on First Amendment grounds for protesting the government's closure orders and Equal Protection grounds because certain businesses were forced to close and others weren't. The Supreme Court of Texas overturned the governor's orders because "the Constitution is not suspended when the government declares a state of disaster." North Carolina ordered churches be allowed open on First Amendment grounds. Cases during the Civil War found that due process could not be suspended even during time of war. Federal courts held after Hurricane Katrina that restrictions on movement and a 6-month suspension of due process had been illegal. So you see, there are plenty of examples of past precedent for it, and many examples that have taken place currently.
The Supreme Court case that is always cited by those in favor of the closures, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upheld the local government's right to require smallpox vaccinations. However, it also said that any measures violating the right to free assembly, due process, or private property remained unconstitutional even in a pandemic, and that anything beyond necessary measures, namely for exerting a police power, remained unconstitutional. It is perhaps the only Supreme Court ruling about emergency powers during a health emergency, and it explicitly leaves state and local government actions open for Constitutional court challenges. So there are plenty of Constitutional reasons for challenging these orders. Even when, as you bring up, many of the cases have been state court decisions about a governor's orders violating state laws and constitutions - so what? They're still illegal. It's not really any better if they're trampling on people's rights by breaking this law instead of that one.
Look, I know you love to play the "Oh, I see, you know more than the experts, sure thing, you're just some random guy on the internet" card. It's like your bread and butter, whether it's about football or the government or whatever. But it most assuredly is not some open-and-shut discussion where cases are being laughed out of court. Some courts have ruled differently than others - I mean hey, judges get it wrong sometimes too. The only really clear part is what is written in the law or the Constitution: "The government shall not do X." When the government does X anyway, and the justification begins with, "But technically ..." that is not a real strong start, and there is a pretty high bar to clear if you want me to believe it's actually legal. That so many people are ok with it the other way is alarming.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Meanwhile, let's see - what's the latest update from all those scientists and epidemiologists who are right all the time?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...iew/index.html
Let's see ... death count down for 10 weeks in a row ("Two weeks to slow the spread!") - check
Most infections among people under age 50 with a death rate of almost zero, exactly what you would want if you want the population immune - check
COVID-19 on the edge of losing "epidemic" classification by the CDC because it no longer meets the definition, and expected to be declared so in the coming weeks - check
Hospital admissions continuing to flatten for the 10th consecutive week despite media reports that they are skyrocketing - check
All 50 states with "low" activity and 47 with "minimal" - check
It's over, dude. Stick a fork in it. There is no "second wave." It is all political now - just people keeping it up because they want to believe despite the overwhelming evidence. It is a religious fervor now.
Once again, you keep raising the bar on ignorance and denial related to this issue.
You keep hammering away about losing constitutional rights.
You’d fit in beautifully in the Deep South.
Since this pandemic started, I’m able to do just about anything I was able to do before it started.
So it’s recommended that I wear a mask to protect myself and others...what a significant loss of rights.
As an aside, who still uses the term, “dude?”
Texas case only dealt with the state constitution and not the federal one. Additionally, it did not conclusively determine that the stay at home was illegal - simply that the Governor could not order the limited release of folks in jails and prisons. That was determined to be a power held by county and municipal officials. As recently as a week ago, the Governor of Texas is still issuing state-wide emergency powers mandates. One of which is currently being challenged in the courts.
Similarly, the Michigan barber case had nothing to do with the US Constitution.
Look, it isn't that some random guy on the internet can't know things. That is never the point. The point is that you consistently fail to demonstrate that you actually know anything. You make definitive declarative statements with zero evidence behind it. You masquerade your opinion as undisputed fact. The fact that remains that in ONLY the Michigan barber case has the issue been the authority of the state to do an emergency declaration. Further, in the Michigan 4 judges have seen the law totally differently in 8 days. More appeals are to come. In none of the cases has the issue been argued in regards to the US Constitution.
Despite your detailed rant - you have yet to provide any tangible information that your central hypothesis that Emergency Powers Declarations by State Governors violate the US Constitution. Now, in your opinion, they do and do so severely. Fine. Not a problem. But your initial bald statement that this was the undisputed truth is easily proven false.
Here, read the US Supreme Court's own words: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...a1044_pok0.pdf and https://www.natlawreview.com/article...om-no-19a1044:
"the Chief recognized that “California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship,” he concluded that “those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” That’s because “[s]imilar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.”
And the idea that the US Constitution is a clear and direct document is totally laughable. Read any one of thousands of Supreme Court decisions and the justices rarely begin with "Well the Constitution is super clear about all this...".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
