POTUS caught a flu

You seem to care greatly, at a personal level.
Please get it right, I’m against universal mandated mask wear.
Too bad your not interested in seeing the end of this virus.
Funny isn't it we excepted mandatory seat belt wearing and realize that our children need to be in a car seat if they are too small for a seat belt but people are apposed to wearing a mask that could see an end to this virus. What do we have to lose by wearing one? Don't give me this crap about your freedom of rights either.
 
Too bad your not interested in seeing the end of this virus.
Funny isn't it we excepted mandatory seat belt wearing and realize that our children need to be in a car seat if they are too small for a seat belt but people are apposed to wearing a mask that could see an end to this virus. What do we have to lose by wearing one? Don't give me this crap about your freedom of rights either.
You do realize your seatbelt arguments support the slippery slope theory.
 
You do realize your seatbelt arguments support the slippery slope theory.
You realize there is nothing in the constitution that supports your claim not to wear a mask
 
You realize there is nothing in the constitution that supports your claim not to wear a mask

Where does the Constitution give the Feds the authority for a national mask mandate? Only the state's can authorize this.

Even Biden realizes this, he's on camera saying he'd call all the governors and ensure they all implement mask orders.

That being said, Florida isn't having record case counts and if the masks work - shouldn't we see that by now?
 
Too bad your not interested in seeing the end of this virus.
Funny isn't it we excepted mandatory seat belt wearing and realize that our children need to be in a car seat if they are too small for a seat belt but people are apposed to wearing a mask that could see an end to this virus. What do we have to lose by wearing one? Don't give me this crap about your freedom of rights either.


So much to unpack here.

THERE IS NO END TO A VIRUS IN ANY SHORT TERM SCIENTIFIC WAY!!!

You continually show your ignorance of legal constructs and embarrass yourself. Driving is a privilege, hence the need for permission (license) to do so. Therefore a seatbelt or any other safety regulations are not infringements of liberty. A mandated mask is an infringement of freedom to breathe freely unencumbered by government regulation.

Such small thinking, the freedoms I hold dear are given by our creator and the constitution merely acknowledges that fact. When you truly hold something dear you protect it from even small infractions...
 
So just why do I passionately debate the mask issue?

These mask mandates were put in place by edict of governors on what were intended to be temporary emergency orders and have been in place for months. So long courts are shutting the orders down.

There is absolutely no reason the legislatures could not have met and determined properly the course of action with the governors. Why didn’t this happen, then there would have been a discussion of just how flimsy the evidence is for mandating mask wear.

We have a process, let’s use it. Can any of you with sincerity make a case we are in an emergency so dangerous that the legislatures cannot do their jobs, to represent all people and decide what is the right course?

I like our country and constitution and our individual state constitutions so let’s use them and stop these governor dictatorships...
 
So just why do I passionately debate the mask issue?

These mask mandates were put in place by edict of governors on what were intended to be temporary emergency orders and have been in place for months. So long courts are shutting the orders down.

There is absolutely no reason the legislatures could not have met and determined properly the course of action with the governors. Why didn’t this happen, then there would have been a discussion of just how flimsy the evidence is for mandating mask wear.

We have a process, let’s use it. Can any of you with sincerity make a case we are in an emergency so dangerous that the legislatures cannot do their jobs, to represent all people and decide what is the right course?

I like our country and constitution and our individual state constitutions so let’s use them and stop these governor dictatorships...
Exactly. First 14-30 days, emergency orders. In that time gather legislators together and pass a law.
 
So much to unpack here.

THERE IS NO END TO A VIRUS IN ANY SHORT TERM SCIENTIFIC WAY!!!

You continually show your ignorance of legal constructs and embarrass yourself. Driving is a privilege, hence the need for permission (license) to do so. Therefore a seatbelt or any other safety regulations are not infringements of liberty. A mandated mask is an infringement of freedom to breathe freely unencumbered by government regulation.

Such small thinking, the freedoms I hold dear are given by our creator and the constitution merely acknowledges that fact. When you truly hold something dear you protect it from even small infractions...
Sucked right in your lack of knowledge of the constitution gets proven daily.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion.

There are two reasons why mask mandates don’t violate the First Amendment.

First, a mask doesn’t keep you from expressing yourself. At most, it limits where and how you can speak. Constitutional law scholars and judges call these “time, place, and manner” restrictions. If they do not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech, such restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. An example of a valid time, place and manner restriction would be a law that limits political campaigning within a certain distance of a voting booth.

Additionally, the First Amendment, like all liberties ensured by the Constitution, is not absolute.

The 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts shows why mask mandates don’t violate any constitutional right to privacy or health or bodily integrity. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The court said that the vaccination requirement did not violate Jacobsen’s right to liberty or “the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.”

As the court wrote, “There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.” In a 1995 New York case, a state court held that an individual with active tuberculosis could be forcibly detained in a hospital for appropriate medical treatment.

Even if you assume that mask mandates infringe upon what the Supreme Court calls “fundamental rights,” or rights that the court has called the “very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty,” it has consistently ruled states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.

Rights are conditional
As the Jacobsen ruling and the doctrine of time, place and manner make clear, the protection of all constitutional liberties rides upon certain necessary – but rarely examined – assumptions about communal and public life.

One is that constitutional rights – whether to liberty, speech, assembly, freedom of movement or autonomy – are held on several conditions. The most basic and important of these conditions is that our exercise of rights must not endanger others (and in so doing violate their rights) or the public welfare. This is simply another version of the police power doctrine.

Unfortunately, a global pandemic in which a serious and deadly communicable disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers upsets that background and justifies a wide range of reasonable restrictions on our liberties. Believing otherwise makes the Constitution a suicide pact – and not just metaphorically.
 
Sucked right in your lack of knowledge of the constitution gets proven daily.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion.

There are two reasons why mask mandates don’t violate the First Amendment.

First, a mask doesn’t keep you from expressing yourself. At most, it limits where and how you can speak. Constitutional law scholars and judges call these “time, place, and manner” restrictions. If they do not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech, such restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. An example of a valid time, place and manner restriction would be a law that limits political campaigning within a certain distance of a voting booth.

Additionally, the First Amendment, like all liberties ensured by the Constitution, is not absolute.

The 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts shows why mask mandates don’t violate any constitutional right to privacy or health or bodily integrity. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The court said that the vaccination requirement did not violate Jacobsen’s right to liberty or “the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.”

As the court wrote, “There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.” In a 1995 New York case, a state court held that an individual with active tuberculosis could be forcibly detained in a hospital for appropriate medical treatment.

Even if you assume that mask mandates infringe upon what the Supreme Court calls “fundamental rights,” or rights that the court has called the “very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty,” it has consistently ruled states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.

Rights are conditional
As the Jacobsen ruling and the doctrine of time, place and manner make clear, the protection of all constitutional liberties rides upon certain necessary – but rarely examined – assumptions about communal and public life.

One is that constitutional rights – whether to liberty, speech, assembly, freedom of movement or autonomy – are held on several conditions. The most basic and important of these conditions is that our exercise of rights must not endanger others (and in so doing violate their rights) or the public welfare. This is simply another version of the police power doctrine.

Unfortunately, a global pandemic in which a serious and deadly communicable disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers upsets that background and justifies a wide range of reasonable restrictions on our liberties. Believing otherwise makes the Constitution a suicide pact – and not just metaphorically.

when you get an opportunity why don’t you try responding to the post?
 
when you get an opportunity why don’t you try responding to the post?
I did with constitutional law something you don't understand.
 
So just why do I passionately debate the mask issue?

These mask mandates were put in place by edict of governors on what were intended to be temporary emergency orders and have been in place for months. So long courts are shutting the orders down.

There is absolutely no reason the legislatures could not have met and determined properly the course of action with the governors. Why didn’t this happen, then there would have been a discussion of just how flimsy the evidence is for mandating mask wear.

We have a process, let’s use it. Can any of you with sincerity make a case we are in an emergency so dangerous that the legislatures cannot do their jobs, to represent all people and decide what is the right course?

I like our country and constitution and our individual state constitutions so let’s use them and stop these governor dictatorships...
What exactly is it that is not working? State legislatures have met in every state since the pandemic began and have produced literally thousands of pieces of legislation regarding covid.
See https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-action-on-coronavirus-covid-19.aspx
Any one of the various legislatures could have overridden their governors' mask mandates (if there was one) or other executive responses. Some have reduced (or tried to reduce) their governor's authorities but most have actually bolstered executive powers, with good reason since it's impossible to fight a war by committee.
 
What exactly is it that is not working? State legislatures have met in every state since the pandemic began and have produced literally thousands of pieces of legislation regarding covid.
See https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-action-on-coronavirus-covid-19.aspx
Any one of the various legislatures could have overridden their governors' mask mandates (if there was one) or other executive responses. Some have reduced (or tried to reduce) their governor's authorities but most have actually bolstered executive powers, with good reason since it's impossible to fight a war by committee.

You may be a subject, but I am not. We have a constitutional republic, and constitutional states that have rules and must be followed. We are a committee of our elected representatives with an executive and each with specific responsibilities and duties and powers reserved to each other alone.

Not sure where the heck you get this crazy idea that just because there’s a pandemic that the executive becomes a dictator? Maybe it was from some of our laissez-faire representatives that gave them a little too much power with emergency orders that they have a abused...
 
You may be a subject, but I am not. We have a constitutional republic, and constitutional states that have rules and must be followed. We are a committee of our elected representatives with an executive and each with specific responsibilities and duties and powers reserved to each other alone.

Not sure where the heck you get this crazy idea that just because there’s a pandemic that the executive becomes a dictator? Maybe it was from some of our laissez-faire representatives that gave them a little too much power with emergency orders that they have a abused...
If you had followed the link you would have seen multiple examples of elected legislators in every state performing their function in response to the pandemic, which is what you seemingly are pining for but is already happening. That, in general, they didn't address the itch you want scratched ought to tell you something. To the extent some legislatures choose to invest more powers in the executive is entirely constitutional. Others took power away, which is fine as well.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,948
Messages
1,422,805
Members
60,930
Latest member
Ebrown69
Back
Top