TexasCHLforum.com

That was a pretty good view and I agree with it for the most part. I think they made two mistakes in it that most people are not aware of. The first mistake is that they said we have the right under the First amendment to peaceably assemble. They missed that there is an "and" clause that says it is to assemble and petition the government. We can definitely gather for protests, but that phrase does not necessarily guarantee just the right to assemble because I want to hang out with my friends. The flip side of this argument is that it has been generally recognized as just the right to assemble for so long, it has become an established and recognized right under the 9th Amendment.

There is also one time the Constitution, or at least a specific part of it, can be suspended. The fact that there is one such suspension mentioned in the document strongly implies that suspension was considered and that it was not to be permitted for anything else. Article I, Section 9, paragraph B allows for Habeas Corpus to be suspended during rebellion or invasion if public safety so requires it. Of course, it designates habeas corpus as a privilege and not a right also. This, in my opinion, strengthens any argument that the rest of the Constitution cannot be suspended, especially the individual rights guaranteed under it.

I did particularly like the mention of the Contracts Clause. No state may make a law impairing the obligation of contracts. That is one heck of an argument against the stay at home order for anyone who works under a contract. It also says they cannot close places where I bought a ticket for admission (that is a contract). And for the current situation, it makes it unconstitutional for the state to say rent is gone or no evictions for unpaid rent. A lawsuit based on that clause could get very interesting.