Politicians and covid mandates

[Almighty God]

The purpose of government is to "impose mandates" that protect us from each other. Because history has shown that we humans will not respect each other's well-being, willingly. And yet we must do so to live together, successfully.

So, when the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to assemble i.e. gather, there should be an asterisk next to it that states: "Unless the government decides it's not safe to do so"?

 

[metis]

So, when the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to assemble i.e. gather, there should be an asterisk next to it that states: "Unless the government decides it's not safe to do so"?

OK, so if a lynch mob surrounds your house with your family in it while threatening to kill you all, then just let the government just stay away and do nothing?

IOW, maybe reread the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, there is also a clear history of denialism from the poster of OP. I think people can read quite quickly where it's coming from. Fair and balanced approaches, are not a thing historically speaking.

So your inference is based on who he is, more than what he said.
To each his own, eh.
Perhaps @InChrist will say who got it right.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, when the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to assemble i.e. gather, there should be an asterisk next to it that states: "Unless the government decides it's not safe to do so"?

SCOTUS, in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts made it clear that there are no unrestricted rights in the US.

'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,'

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

 

[Windwalker]

So your inference is based on who he is, more than what he said.
To each his own, eh.
Perhaps @InChrist will say who got it right.

Don't you usually take into account the source, to understand the context, which itself communicates the truth of what they are trying to say? I thought that was a normal human thing that we evolved once language was developed. Then again, I know there are those that simply can't understand those more subtle forms of communication that the typical person grew up understanding. That's an anomaly though, and not the norm.

You sure like to try to give a dead horse CPR, don't you?

 

[PureX]

So, when the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to assemble i.e. gather, there should be an asterisk next to it that states: "Unless the government decides it's not safe to do so"?

Only if one is too confused to recognize this, innately. Most of us don't need the asterisk because we understand that this is what governments are for, and why we need them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you usually take into account the source, to understand the context....

I try to avoid pre-judging.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you usually take into account the source, to understand the context, which itself communicates the truth of what they are trying to say? I thought that was a normal human thing that we evolved once language was developed. Then again, I know there are those that simply can't understand those more subtle forms of communication that the typical person grew up understanding. That's an anomaly though, and not the norm.

You sure like to try to give a dead horse CPR, don't you?

I prefer to give weight to what’s said than to prejudge.

 

[Almighty God]

SCOTUS, in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts made it clear that there are no unrestricted rights in the US.

'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,'

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

From your article:

While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed

Of course people don't have unlimited rights. They only have the rights granted by the Constitution. And freedom of assembly is one of them.

 

[Almighty God]

Only if one is too confused to recognize this, innately. Most of us don't need the asterisk because we understand that this is what governments are for, and why we need them.

Ah, I see. So you don't believe in the rights as they were written in the Constitution.

 

[Almighty God]

OK, so if a lynch mob surrounds your house with your family in it while threatening to kill you all, then just let the government just stay away and do nothing?

IOW, maybe reread the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And, please kindly explain, what the hell does a "lynch mob" have to do with the right to peaceably assemble as guaranteed by the first amendment?

 

[Wandering Monk]

From your article:

While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed

Of course people don't have unlimited rights. They only have the rights granted by the Constitution. And freedom of assembly is one of them.

What Constitutional right is violated when a governor mandates masks? That's what this discussion is about, right?

As for building occupancy, these are already regulated by local fire marshalls.

And, as you read in Jacobson, the government can mandate vaccination. No rights violated there apparently.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Taking the OP at face value, I didn't infer that message.

Me, neither. People just seem quick to fly off the handle and condemn people. The first 5 replies or so were basically the same reply worded differently.

 

[Wandering Monk]

From your article:

While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed

Of course people don't have unlimited rights. They only have the rights granted by the Constitution. And freedom of assembly is one of them.

'Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.'


In 1902, the Supreme Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographical area. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, the justices upheld a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that the state could enact and enforce quarantine laws unless Congress had decided to preempt them. Thus Louisiana could exclude healthy persons from an infested area populated with persons with a contagious or infectious disease (the Port of New Orleans), and that this power applied as well to persons seeking to enter the infected place, whether they came from within the state or not. The decision in Compagnie Francaise remains unchanged, and numerous courts have cited it as authority for state quarantines as recently as the Ebola outbreak.'

Two centuries of law guide legal approach to modern pandemic

 

[Almighty God]

What Constitutional right is violated when a governor mandates masks? That's what this discussion is about, right?

As for building occupancy, these are already regulated by local fire marshalls.

And, as you read in Jacobson, the government can mandate vaccination. No rights violated there apparently.

No constitutional right is violated by mask mandates, vaccine mandates, or building occupancy laws, as far as I know. I was referring to "stay-at-home" orders, which effectively prohibit people from interacting with members of other households. These are obviously unconstitutional.

 

[Wandering Monk]

. These are obviously unconstitutional.

Or not. See the post about quarantine, #34 above.

 

[InChrist]

You're right. Let's not take measures to protect the population. Let's embrace the impending wave of death this second wave will bring, becaue it's been made into a political talking point. Only 75 nine eleven's worth of people have died so far. Let's go for broke!

Try reading the OP again. It doesn’t infer that protective measures should not be taken.

 

[InChrist]

Currently, the US:
256,262 deaths from Covid.

Then why are these politicians who implement measures meant to protect people ignoring them themselves? Are they or the people they associate with immune and above the mandates others are required to follow?

 

[InChrist]

Scrap our defence, ie the military; ban seat-belts in cars; don't have safe crossing zones in towns; get rid of the police... Freedom is great without people telling us what to do

How is your response related to the point of the OP?

 

[InChrist]

The purpose of government is to "impose mandates" that protect us from each other. Because history has shown that we humans will not respect each other's well-being, willingly. And yet we must do so to live together, successfully.

Did you read the OP? Did you watch the videos or read the articles? How is your response the point?