Op Ed on Constitutionality of COVID 19 Orders

[seeker_two]

I'll be interested to see how these SIP orders are enforced across various demographics. I'll bet there will be few, if any, citations at the following locations.....

Crack houses

Penthouses

Country/seaside estates

.....wonder why?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

We are seeing something that is entirely unsettling currently.

Orders, that I suspect would never bear scrutiny in any court of law.

Orders, that I also suspect are de facto infringement of our constitutional rights.

This, is wrong, and regardless of what pandemic or crisis, should NEVER infringe upon our rights as citizens of this country.

 

[etmo]

Orders, that I suspect would never bear scrutiny in any court of law.

You should follow the 9th Circuit -- the garbage which passes their scrutiny would greatly surpass your suspicions

Orders, that I also suspect are de facto infringement of our constitutional rights.

I don't think infringement means what you think it means

 

[vmax]

The Gov of Michigan just made it illegal to travel from one residence to another with a handful of exceptions like caring for elderly or custody
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-michigan-travel-ban-visits-20200410.html

 

[vmax]

You should follow the 9th Circuit -- the garbage which passes their scrutiny would greatly surpass your suspicions



I don't think infringement means what you think it means

Almost every American in every state peradventure has been deprived of our Liberty which is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence
The government that was created to defend that right, has rose up and infringed upon it... thats pretty clear to me and that is just the liberty portion, there is also the pursuit of happiness right which in a nutshell, allows us to live our lives the way we want as long as they are legal and don’t harm others.

 

[etmo]

View attachment 209191

Almost every American in every state peradventure has been deprived of our Liberty which is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence
The government that was created to defend that right, has rose up and infringed upon it... thats pretty clear to me and that is just the liberty portion, there is also the pursuit of happiness right which in a nutshell, allows us to live our lives the way we want as long as they are legal and don’t harm others.

You're close

The dictionary you referenced has a feature of which you might not be aware
That feature is that the oldest meaning is listed first

SCOTUS has a slight majority of "originalists" -- Justices who believe that laws should be interpreted to mean what the words meant at the time the law was written

So according to those originalists, "infringement" means what it meant in 1792, when the 2nd amendment was adopted -- "broken"
NOT the later meaning, "to limit something"

And FYI -- the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. This nation is a Constitutional Republic -- we elect our representatives to govern on our behalf, and the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, the Declaration is just a cool historical document, like the Federalist Papers.

 

[cycleguy2300]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Explain please?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[vmax]

@etmo

And you are close also..
While I referenced the DOI, Liberty is spelled out in the 14th Amendment along with life. I knew those were protected rights..I’m just not as smart as you are..
The text is below for your reference.


“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

 

[Axxe55]

You should follow the 9th Circuit -- the garbage which passes their scrutiny would greatly surpass your suspicions



I don't think infringement means what you think it means

Maybe it is.

Have they declared martial law?
Have we gone to war with a formal declaration of war?
Are we nationally under threat from a foreign country?
And my favorite. Was the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights declared null and void?

Unless, those conditions have been met, IMO, it's infringement.

When someone without the proper authority, can tell me where I can, or can't go, and either fine, or detain me for not heeding their orders, that's infringement.

 

[pronstar]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[oldag]

 

[Lonesome Dove]

It’s not hurting me to do
what has been asked. I still
go to the store and for drives but I don’t get around people. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in my case.

 

[Axxe55]

@etmo.

I'd like to hear your definition of what infringement is.

I'm sure others would like to hear it as well.

 

[etmo]

@etmo.

I'd like to hear your definition of what infringement is.

I'm sure others would like to hear it as well.

So first, let's be clear -- my opinion doesn't matter. None of our opinions matter. All we can do is vote, and hope that the politicians we elect will appoint judges and Justices that agree with us, but that's where our influence into the judicial branch ends.

The current members of SCOTUS have been appointed for life because then they have the freedom to not give a rat's arse about our opinions. They are free of political BS, and they can just (we hope) follow the Constitution and lesser laws faithfully.

To answer your question, I'm good with your average dictionary's definition. So are the majority of the Justices in SCOTUS, and as I mentioned, the majority of SCOTUS will specifically take "break the terms of a law" as the definition of "infringe", because that's what it meant when [the 2A, in this case] was written.

So we arrive at "well, what does it mean to 'break' the terms of a law?" And here again, our opinions don't matter. Only SCOTUS gets the final word on what the law means. And they have spoken, at least a little bit.
In 2008, SCOTUS gave us the Heller decision, the first real in-depth look into the 2A in the history of SCOTUS. And Heller makes it crystal clear that plenty of anti-gun laws are entirely constitutional.

Do I agree with everything in Heller? Nope. But remember the first thing I said -- my opinion doesn't matter. There is no election in which I can vote for my favorite SCOTUS Justice, or vote my least favorite Justice (Sotomayor) off the bench. Only SCOTUS gets to decide what the Constitution means, and they did. Now there's tons more work for them to do on the 2A, tons more clarification, but we have to live in the real world (if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality I suppose you can take enough drugs to do that) and in the real world plenty of limitations and restrictions are entirely constitutional.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[etmo]

@etmo

And you are close also..
While I referenced the DOI, Liberty is spelled out in the 14th Amendment along with life. I knew those were protected rights..I’m just not as smart as you are..
The text is below for your reference.


“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

The 14A is one of my favorites.

The problem is that the most important piece of it (where the 2A is concerned) is something that SCOTUS has kinda written off as unimportant.

So again, we're left with the "our opinions don't matter" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Axxe55]

So first, let's be clear -- my opinion doesn't matter. None of our opinions matter. All we can do is vote, and hope that the politicians we elect will appoint judges and Justices that agree with us, but that's where our influence into the judicial branch ends.

The current members of SCOTUS have been appointed for life because then they have the freedom to not give a rat's arse about our opinions. They are free of political BS, and they can just (we hope) follow the Constitution and lesser laws faithfully.

To answer your question, I'm good with your average dictionary's definition. So are the majority of the Justices in SCOTUS, and as I mentioned, the majority of SCOTUS will specifically take "break the terms of a law" as the definition of "infringe", because that's what it meant when [the 2A, in this case] was written.

So we arrive at "well, what does it mean to 'break' the terms of a law?" And here again, our opinions don't matter. Only SCOTUS gets the final word on what the law means. And they have spoken, at least a little bit.
In 2008, SCOTUS gave us the Heller decision, the first real in-depth look into the 2A in the history of SCOTUS. And Heller makes it crystal clear that plenty of anti-gun laws are entirely constitutional.

Do I agree with everything in Heller? Nope. But remember the first thing I said -- my opinion doesn't matter. There is no election in which I can vote for my favorite SCOTUS Justice, or vote my least favorite Justice (Sotomayor) off the bench. Only SCOTUS gets to decide what the Constitution means, and they did. Now there's tons more work for them to do on the 2A, tons more clarification, but we have to live in the real world (if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality I suppose you can take enough drugs to do that) and in the real world plenty of limitations and restrictions are entirely constitutional.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Mmm.... whatever.

I would like for you to show us, exactly where and by what authority that they have to infringe upon our rights.

A shorter and simpler answer would suffice.

 

[jrbfishn]

Being in compliance with the Constitution and being declared to because of a percieved necessity is not the same thing.
There is NO "except" clause in the Constitution for any entity to strip the rights of U.S. citizens.
Regardless of which court it is.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[etmo]

Mmm.... whatever.

I would like for you to show us, exactly where and by what authority that they have to infringe upon our rights.

A shorter and simpler answer would suffice.

Who says they are infringing on our rights? Some clown named etmo whose opinion doesn't matter?

 

[Rhino]

It’s not hurting me to do
what has been asked. I still
go to the store and for drives but I don’t get around people. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in my case.

But it should be voluntary. The suspension of the Bill of Rights is a big deal and if we won’t stand up for our right to assemble and worship, the 40-60% who worship the government definitely won’t help protect your 2nd. Now is the time to educate and defend peacefully.

 

[Axxe55]

Who says they are infringing on our rights? Some clown named etmo whose opinion doesn't matter?

Gathering by the impression that I was getting from your responses to my posts, yes, you.

You informed me, that I didn't know what infringement was.

I think I more than proved I knew what infringement is.

Just off the top of my head, I'm seeing several constitutional rights being violated by these so called "orders".

The 1st, the 4th, and the 5th.
Restricting the right to assemble.
Unlawful search and siezure.
No due process of law.

I imagine if I were to look a little more, I might find others, but I think these would be a good start on our rights that are being infringed upon.