flechero wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:23 pm
PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:13 pm
Can somebody explain to me how this is legal?
Sure I think its a good idea, but it is still PERSONAL responsibility and decisions that should dictate, not top down implimentation.
Friggin police state.
The
State of emergency changes the normal rules, I believe.
While I understand your sentiment, in this case I support it. A large percentage of the population would not adhere to a
'please stay home' request... and as one who has a number of high risk family members, I see this as a good move. Also have several friends who are Dr.'s and they also support it.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Amendment I:
Violated via mandated maximum assemblies.
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.
Amendment II:
Violated via several emergency declarations, and the right to muster a militia. See Example
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV:
Violated via New York's "volunteering" of a profiteer's hand sanitizer stash. Ya the guy is a douchbag, but that doesn't mean he gets to have his rights violated. See Example
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V:
Violated via Dallas among dozens of others forcefully closing resturaunts. If someone CANNOT use his private property however he deems fit, then the government is 'taking' it. See Example
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI:
Violated via the siezure of property without provision of a lawyer, as well as not allowing jury trials for Emminent Domain upon which such seizures are based.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII:
Violated via the siezure of property without allowing a jury trial when the Government is the defendant.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII:
What are the fines going to be if someone refuses to close? I'm gonna bet they will be excessive.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX:
IE, the government only gets to do that which it has been specifically, CONSTITUTIONALLY, enumerated. Just having 'emergency powers' in the millions of laws on the books doesn't make it constitutional.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
II guess the 10th is safe for once, at least for now.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
