A Baptist church had a great idea. A drive in service! Nope.

[Twilight Hue]

The constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in the People's Republic of New York are arguably finished. They act and behave like the Chinese Communist party now.

New York Pastor Threatened with $1,000 Fine For Holding Drive-in Church Service

The government does not have the right to shut down church services because in this case it's outside, people are proper distancing, and inside their own cars.

With all that taken into consideration, does the government still have the right to throw out the Constitution as it pertains to the first amendment?

Why are the police even involved in this?


For those who don't know what it says, here is the 1st amendment itself...



The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I think everyone can understand that we need to take precautions, but this church seems to have done it very well and there is no reason whatsoever for the government to come barging in and shut it down. From a constitutional standpoint that's highly illegal.

What's even worse, to know that the government's going to come to your house of worship and threaten to shut you down should send a stark message and shivers up people's spines that the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on by some government entities who are more than willing to come in unabated, and do this to people.

So what do you think is there a violation of the Constitution?

Was there any notable violations of safety that I haven't noticed? Personally, I didn't see any.

Remember the government has no right to create any laws impeding people's ability to worship however they see fit including gatherings of people of any number.

Well, I like to know is this the kind of country we've become now.

 

[exchemist]

The constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in the People's Republic of New York are arguably finished. They act and behave like the Chinese Communist party now.

New York Pastor Threatened with $1,000 Fine For Holding Drive-in Church Service

The government does not have the right to shut down church services because in this case it's outside, people are proper distancing, and inside their own cars.

With all that taken into consideration, does the government still have the right to throw out the Constitution as it pertains to the first amendment?

Why are the police even involved in this?


For those who don't know what it says, here is the 1st amendment itself...



The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I think everyone can understand that we need to take precautions, but this church seems to have done it very well and there is no reason whatsoever for the government to come barging in and shut it down. From a constitutional standpoint that's highly illegal.

What's even worse, to know that the government's going to come to your house of worship and threaten to shut you down should send a stark message and shivers up people's spines that the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on by some government entities who are more than willing to come in unabated, and do this to people.

So what do you think is there a violation of the Constitution?

Was there any notable violations of safety that I haven't noticed? Personally, I didn't see any.

Remember the government has no right to create any laws impeding people's ability to worship however they see fit including gatherings of people of any number.

Well, I like to know is this the kind of country we've become now.

Maybe the police dept made a mistake.

The police have a hell of a job enforcing these new emergency regulations, since they are not used to it, and they do make mistakes and do clumsy things. This is happening quite a bit in the UK. A number of police forces have been made to look a bit foolish.

It seems to me you are getting artificially hot and bothered about this, to manufacture a massive "constitutional" issue out of a single maladroit action of a police dept. Why not wait and see how the argument is settled?

 

[columbus]

Well, I like to know is this the kind of country we've become now.

It's the kind of country that fines and imprisons people for driving drunk, even if they haven't demonstrably killed or injured anybody.

Yet.

Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's even worse, to know that the government's going to come to your house of worship and threaten to shut you down should send a stark message and shivers up people's spines that the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on by some government entities who are more than willing to come in unabated, and do this to people.

Didn't you just say that they weren't even in their house of worship?

 

[Wandering Monk]

The constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion in the People's Republic of New York are arguably finished. They act and behave like the Chinese Communist party now.

New York Pastor Threatened with $1,000 Fine For Holding Drive-in Church Service

The government does not have the right to shut down church services because in this case it's outside, people are proper distancing, and inside their own cars.

With all that taken into consideration, does the government still have the right to throw out the Constitution as it pertains to the first amendment?

Why are the police even involved in this?


For those who don't know what it says, here is the 1st amendment itself...



The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I think everyone can understand that we need to take precautions, but this church seems to have done it very well and there is no reason whatsoever for the government to come barging in and shut it down. From a constitutional standpoint that's highly illegal.

What's even worse, to know that the government's going to come to your house of worship and threaten to shut you down should send a stark message and shivers up people's spines that the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on by some government entities who are more than willing to come in unabated, and do this to people.

So what do you think is there a violation of the Constitution?

Was there any notable violations of safety that I haven't noticed? Personally, I didn't see any.

Remember the government has no right to create any laws impeding people's ability to worship however they see fit including gatherings of people of any number.

Well, I like to know is this the kind of country we've become now.

In Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, SCOTUS ruled that the state of Massachusetts had the authority (under penalty of fine in their case) to compel vaccination. In their ruling they said this:

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine​

With regard to quarantine, SCOTUS upheld the authority of the state and federal governments to impose quarantines. This is from the Harvard Law site:

"The Supreme Court passed upon the validity of federal quarantine powers under the Commerce Clause and the simultaneous power held by states to implement their own quarantines in Bartlett v. Lockwood in 1896. The Court held as unquestionable the "authority of Congress to establish quarantine regulations and to protect the country as respects its commerce from contagious and infectious diseases,"[126] . It also, however, recognized that this federal power did not invalidate state laws relating to the same policy domain, citing Congress's decision "in view of the different requirements of different climates and localities and of the difficulty of framing general law upon the subject, ...to permit the several States to regulate the matter of protecting the public health as to themselves seemed best."[127] The Court thus seemed to view the federal appropriation of a power which had traditionally belonged to the states as justified under the Commerce Clause. Another case before the court in 1896 presented the more pointed question of whether state or federal laws would prevail in the case of conflict, when the federal law was enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause and the state law enacted for the purpose of regulating health. In Hennington v. Georgia , Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

"If the inspection, quarantine, or health laws of a State, passed under its reserved power to provide for the health, comfort, safety of its people, come into conflict with an act of Congress, passed under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, such local regulations, to the extent of the conflict, must give way in order that the supreme law of the land—an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution—may have unobstructed operation."[128]

This ruling left little question that Congress could enact quarantine laws and the Surgeon General could enforce them even if those laws conflicted with state quarantine laws."
​

 

[sun rise]

The right likes to complain. When California opened up drive in services, we heard the same thing. After all, what's 100000 more dead or even 250000 as long as we can assert rights without responsibilities. Being responsible if for other people not us. We're special is the motto.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, SCOTUS ruled that the state of Massachusetts had the authority (under penalty of fine in their case) to compel vaccination. In their ruling they said this:

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine​

With regard to quarantine, SCOTUS upheld the authority of the state and federal governments to impose quarantines. This is from the Harvard Law site:

"The Supreme Court passed upon the validity of federal quarantine powers under the Commerce Clause and the simultaneous power held by states to implement their own quarantines in Bartlett v. Lockwood in 1896. The Court held as unquestionable the "authority of Congress to establish quarantine regulations and to protect the country as respects its commerce from contagious and infectious diseases,"[126] . It also, however, recognized that this federal power did not invalidate state laws relating to the same policy domain, citing Congress's decision "in view of the different requirements of different climates and localities and of the difficulty of framing general law upon the subject, ...to permit the several States to regulate the matter of protecting the public health as to themselves seemed best."[127] The Court thus seemed to view the federal appropriation of a power which had traditionally belonged to the states as justified under the Commerce Clause. Another case before the court in 1896 presented the more pointed question of whether state or federal laws would prevail in the case of conflict, when the federal law was enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause and the state law enacted for the purpose of regulating health. In Hennington v. Georgia , Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

"If the inspection, quarantine, or health laws of a State, passed under its reserved power to provide for the health, comfort, safety of its people, come into conflict with an act of Congress, passed under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, such local regulations, to the extent of the conflict, must give way in order that the supreme law of the land—an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution—may have unobstructed operation."[128]

This ruling left little question that Congress could enact quarantine laws and the Surgeon General could enforce them even if those laws conflicted with state quarantine laws."
​

The difference is vaccinations are not in the Constitution. Religious freedom is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The right likes to complain. When California opened up drive in services, we heard the same thing. After all, what's 100000 more dead or even 250000 as long as we can assert rights without responsibilities. Being responsible if for other people not us. We're special is the motto.

I don't think I've ever recalled criticizing a drive in service. Just reckless mass gatherings inside a building, and even that was a while back.

There really is a conflict between health and security and constitutional protections. What actually supersedes the other?

The question is where does the fine line actually lay between legality and illegality?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Didn't you just say that they weren't even in their house of worship?

From what I gather from the article, they were outside in the parking lot inside their own cars with the FM station set for a local broadcast to the parishioners in their own cars.

The pastor was on the porch of the church from how I'm reading it well past the 6ft recommendation for distance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I like to know is this the kind of country we've become now.

A country in crisis and in a state of emergency because of a very nasty bug floating around and killing people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The right likes to complain. When California opened up drive in services, we heard the same thing. After all, what's 100000 more dead or even 250000 as long as we can assert rights without responsibilities. Being responsible if for other people not us. We're special is the motto.

The issue was proper PPE. I don't think a drive in service is all that bad a thing it's long as they do their part in helping prevent any potential spread of the virus should it be there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A country in crisis and in a state of emergency because of a very nasty bug floating around and killing people.

Do you think a national constitution should be suspended in such circumstances?

 

[Wandering Monk]

The difference is vaccinations are not in the Constitution. Religious freedom is.

Did you not read the bolded part in Jacobson?

"The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, "

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe the police dept made a mistake.

The police have a hell of a job enforcing these new emergency regulations, since they are not used to it, and they do make mistakes and do clumsy things. This is happening quite a bit in the UK. A number of police forces have been made to look a bit foolish.

It seems to me you are getting artificially hot and bothered about this, to manufacture a massive "constitutional" issue out of a single maladroit action of a police dept. Why not wait and see how the argument is settled?

Oh there's definitely going to be court cases accusing Governor Cuomo of abuse of power and violating constitutional protections. There have been a slew of lawsuits filed already.

It'll be interesting to see how all that plays out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did you not read the bolded part in Jacobson?

"The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, "

That's actually pretty vague and clearly open to abuse. I'm now curious what the criteria for suspension of constitutional protections would look like.

As of now, it looks a lot more like a police state is in effect than anything else with the promise by the government to initiate more crackdowns.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you think a national constitution should be suspended in such circumstances?

Yes. People's safety, well being, general welfare and lives are at stake, the government is Constitutionally charged with protecting those things. The trends and evidence clearly show that people getting together allows the virus tobspread around easier, and do remember this is an extremely contagious infection.
As the Libertarians say, your rights end where your neighbors nose begins. In thos case, no one has a right to endanger the others by maoing their nose inhale a pathogen that could make them seriously ill or kill them. Also remember covid patients arent the only ones at risk. It's everyone needing emergency services.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It's an old story. Government has learned how to benefit from a crisis.

Throw a fear in the people, and lock them up. They, the govt., won't forget it. Thus you can expect it time, and time again, as long as the Government sees a need for it.

In the U.S, the government sees, in this crisis, an ability to by pass the Constitution. And that Constitution has always been in the way of power.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what I gather from the article, they were outside in the parking lot inside their own cars with the FM station set for a local broadcast to the parishioners in their own cars.

The pastor was on the porch of the church from how I'm reading it well past the 6ft recommendation for distance.

Right: so it was a parking lot that was shut down, not a house of worship.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a no brainer, really. Your rights and freedoms cross the line when they begin to violate the rights and freedoms of others.
For example, only an imbecile would argue that the 2nd amendment makes it okay for someome to dance down a busy street while spraying bullets into the air, even if they don't intend to harm others. Constitional rights don't entitle people to place others at risk. With freedom comes responsibility. If you don't practice the latter, you don't deserve the former.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The issue was proper PPE. I don't think a drive in service is all that bad a thing it's long as they do their part in helping prevent any potential spread of the virus should it be there.

That didn't happen elsewhere this has been tried. People out of their cars, clustering together, no PPE to be seen. That's what happens. Because they are people.