Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Thank you for the reminder. All good. God bless.You made the claim of lawsuits lost, which you have as yet to present even one.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you for the reminder. All good. God bless.You made the claim of lawsuits lost, which you have as yet to present even one.
If it hurts innocent others, yes. For an equivalent example, if I drive 75 in a 25, I'm putting myself and others at risk. Do you think there should be any speed limits? Montana tried it on their expressways but rescinded it after a couple of years.If you choose to subordinate judgment to the pronouncements of others that is your right. Is it wrong for me to keep my judgment process in house?
Not a great comparison, since government is not authorized to regulate citizens' health but is authorized to regulate its road systems. But the example you offered for applying judgment is sound and I agree with it. IE, If I understand the thing I'm doing to result in the injury of others—if that is my judgment—I'm not going to do it.If it hurts innocent others, yes. For an equivalent example, if I drive 75 in a 25, I'm putting myself and others at risk. Do you think there should be any speed limits? Montana tried it on their expressways but rescinded it after a couple of years.
The CDC and FDA, amongst others, say something quite different, and this also falls under the "promote the general welfare" found in the Preamble.Not a great comparison, since government is not authorized to regulate citizens' health but is authorized to regulate its road systems.
Oh? Do the CDC and FDA say that they are authorized to regulate citizens' health? This I was not aware of. Where is that found in the law? Could you cite it for me?The CDC and FDA, amongst others, say something quite different, and this also falls under the "promote the general welfare" found in the Preamble.
They are advisory branches, amongst many others, and then the three branches can take their advice.Oh? Do the CDC and FDA say that they are authorized to regulate citizens' health? This I was not aware of. Where is that found in the law? Could you cite it for me?
Oh? I was not aware that executive-branch agencies were given authority to advise either the legislative or judicial branches. Again, can you point me to where this is found in the law?They are advisory branches, amongst many others, and then the three branches can take their advice.
I appreciate that. Without clarifying things with posters in these discussions it can be easy for us to imagine people to be what they are not.But my main point is that you really are coming off as being uncaring about others.
When it endangers others and puts them at risk yes, it is very much wrong.Is it wrong for me to keep my judgment process in house?
Oh? I was not aware that executive-branch agencies were given authority to advise either the legislative or judicial branches. Again, can you point me to where this is found in the law?
I appreciate that. Without clarifying things with posters in these discussions it can be easy for us to imagine people to be what they are not. <comment removed for not being conducive to good-faith discourse>
Montana still has 75 mile an hour speed limits on some freeways; was just over there last month.If it hurts innocent others, yes. For an equivalent example, if I drive 75 in a 25, I'm putting myself and others at risk. Do you think there should be any speed limits? Montana tried it on their expressways but rescinded it after a couple of years.
That was not what he was asking about.Montana still has 75 mile an hour speed limits on some freeways; was just over there last month.
I think what was meant was that, for a time, Montana tried having no speed limit on many sections of freeway?Montana still has 75 mile an hour speed limits on some freeways; was just over there last month.
That is my understanding as wellI think what was meant was that, for a time, Montana tried having no speed limit on many sections of freeway?
Hey, quick question. Does the forum handle "Catholic Crusader" mean anything to you by chance? Just wondering.
You are probably correct about that.I think what was meant was that, for a time, Montana tried having no speed limit on many sections of freeway?
Okay, sorry, it was off topic.That was not what he was asking about.
Even when it doesn't infringe,When the behavior of licensed health care professionals constitutes and infringement of the rights of others, I agree.
Their licensing board.I know of licensed health care professionals who have prescribed Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 and are still licensed and still practicing. Should I call the police?
I concern myself with everything important.If you're not concerned about it, all good.
But it's FOX "News." Murdoch, et al. The tabloid guy. The paper you pick up at the check-out stand to see what the aliens are up to, who they kidnapped today to "probe." Who they impregnated, and where their alien hybrid child is living. How the alien baby is doing, because you want to know that their alien babies are doing well.The Biden administration "ran afoul" of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
Biden administration violated First Amendment over COVID-19 content on social media, court of appeals rules
The Biden administration violated the First Amendment by trying to "coerce" social media platforms to remove coronavirus content it found problematic, a federal court of appeals ruled.news.yahoo.com
I think not only did they pressure websites -- but also silenced opposing medical voices to maintain a narrative. IMV
Makes one wonder how many platforms were forced to police, or make their own decision, as to what was right and what was wrong violating Constitutional free speech and the conversations that were pertinent to the issue.
I understand. Note that I'm not looking at the outcome of such regulation. Regulation is arguably effective. But while regulation that preempts action is common, it is rarely harmonious with our primal laws, which establish a government responsive to its citizens' actions, not disruptive of them. Perhaps regulation is never harmonious? We've stopped looking, I believe. We endure so much regulation, we have largely become accustomed to it. And a casual attitude makes it easier for our rights to contract without cause. So I oppose regulation (generally), and call it for what it is, regardless of how popular or effective it might be.Even when it doesn't infringe,
public policy is part of their function.
That's just it; government's initial action against Mary was not infringement; it was justice. Once government established probable cause, her right to "business as usual" had to yield to the administration of justice. So there was nothing "balanced."There's useful infringement at times because
competing rights must be balanced, eg, the
Typhoid Marys' liberty vs the populace's health.
The former should be curbed as little as practical
to guard the latter.
So not a crime, then.Their licensing board.
How is this known?So not a crime, then.