Op Ed on Constitutionality of COVID 19 Orders

[gdr_11]

These infringements have come in stages, likely for officials to test the reactions of the sheeple.

First the “recommended actions”, next the cancelling of public events, then the closing of bars and restaurants, the closing of salons/barber shops, etc, the various stay at home orders, curfews and face mask requirements. After each step, the public response was weighed before the next step.

Rights are seldom removed in one fell swoop, they are eroded in order to condition the public so they dont see the loss

 

[Rhino]

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.

Add the Texas Constitution to that.

 

[etmo]

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

Yes, it's only me, and that's the point. I don't get a vote on the matter -- legally my opinion has no weight (like trying to bring the DOI into the discussion). SCOTUS decides if there's an infringement, not us. That's what I'm trying to get across. SCOTUS has decided many anti-gun laws are absolutely A-OK. The game is kinda over, and we're all just waiting to find out exactly what is A-OK and what is not (magazine capacity laws? Carry restrictions? "Assault weapons" bans?).

You and I can agree we don't like certain decisions by SCOTUS, and we wish different decisions had been made, but that's reality. SCOTUS decides, and they have decided.

The are only two realistic options going forward (besides the option where we just whine and stamp our feet; we will choose that option frequently when we are frustrated and impatient). We can vote for officials who will appoint Justices that will overturn past decisions with which we disagree. You definitely don't want to hold your breath on that, so while that's cooking, the other option is to provide financial support to organizations (like the NRA-ILA, SAF, GOA, etc.) that are litigating against the government in Court to regain lost rights, overturn laws we believe go too far.

The rest of this post is all about the privileges and immunities clause of the 14A, so tune out now if that's not of interest to you.

One organization mentioned above, SAF, is relevant to an earlier post in this thread where someone mentioned the 14A. The juicy bit there is the so-called "privileges and immunities" clause, in legal circles it's abbreviated as "P&I". Privileges and immunities is a legal term of art which just means "rights". So your privileges and immunities just means your civil and natural rights, but it's a fancier term they used to use 150+ years ago.

For purposes of this post, the biggest deal with the 14A was to ensure that each state respected the rights (the privileges and immunities) of all citizens of the USA. So you had the RKBA in Kansas, even if you were from NY, and you had freedom of religion in Virginia and in Delaware, etc. Very, very powerful stuff at the time. That was the biggest limit that was ever placed on states. Remember, as discussed earlier, states were intended to be all-powerful "the sovereign state" -- no limits on them whatsoever. Well, allowing the state the power to enslave someone was now considered too much power, so we had the Civil War, the North won and decided that the way to limit state power was in part by saying that your P&I had to be respected everywhere in the USA.

Great! All's well, right? Of course not. Time passes, and politicians want more power, and all your pesky rights get in their way, so they're always passing laws, some of which go too far. So those laws get challenged in Court, and SCOTUS is supposed to slap Congress on the wrist, and flush laws which go too far down the toilet, but it turns out SCOTUS didn't always do a very good job (Slaughter-House Cases) for various reasons, so P&I is today sort of like the 10th amendment -- it's been read by past Courts into having virtually no legal power.

But SAF's top lawyer, Alan Gura, believes that's a shame, and that SCOTUS should read life back into P&I. He actually tried to get SCOTUS to buy into a P&I based solution in 2008 for the McDonald case, and even though he won that case (that's the only reason you have any 2A rights today, so remember to say thanks to Mr Gura if you ever see him), SCOTUS didn't bite on adopting real meaning to P&I.

However, a surprising thing happened. Even though the majority opinion in the McDonald case rejected a P&I-based opinion, Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he agreed with Gura, and Thomas said that the privileges and immunities clause in the 14A was indeed the exact reason why the 2nd amendment should be applied against the states.

So it was discovered that at least one member of SCOTUS was on board the P&I train, and willing to stand up for P&I in front of the whole world. So you're saying there's a chance....

Hmmmm....maybe the legal profession was undergoing a change? In 1980, originalism was a joke in the study of law. Today, if your law school doesn't have at least one strong originalist on the faculty, your law school is a joke. So Gura has long been very aware of that trend, and he (and other lawyers on the Supreme Court bar) are hoping that the two new kids on SCOTUS might be on board with a restoration of P&I (that would give 3 votes, with Thomas), and hey, if RBG and Breyer retire, maybe the last 2 needed votes will come on board, or maybe Roberts grows a pair and RBG has a senior moment to get us 5 votes and we can really make some changes and restore some lost liberties.

So that's way, way more than anyone wanted to hear about the P&I clause of the 14A, sorry, but it's always fun to talk about for me, and I've been cooped up too long, and had way too much Franklin's brisket today!

 

[Axxe55]

Yes, it's only me, and that's the point. I don't get a vote on the matter -- legally my opinion has no weight (like trying to bring the DOI into the discussion). SCOTUS decides if there's an infringement, not us. That's what I'm trying to get across. SCOTUS has decided many anti-gun laws are absolutely A-OK. The game is kinda over, and we're all just waiting to find out exactly what is A-OK and what is not (magazine capacity laws? Carry restrictions? "Assault weapons" bans?).

You and I can agree we don't like certain decisions by SCOTUS, and we wish different decisions had been made, but that's reality. SCOTUS decides, and they have decided.

The are only two realistic options going forward (besides the option where we just whine and stamp our feet; we will choose that option frequently when we are frustrated and impatient). We can vote for officials who will appoint Justices that will overturn past decisions with which we disagree. You definitely don't want to hold your breath on that, so while that's cooking, the other option is to provide financial support to organizations (like the NRA-ILA, SAF, GOA, etc.) that are litigating against the government in Court to regain lost rights, overturn laws we believe go too far.

The rest of this post is all about the privileges and immunities clause of the 14A, so tune out now if that's not of interest to you.

One organization mentioned above, SAF, is relevant to an earlier post in this thread where someone mentioned the 14A. The juicy bit there is the so-called "privileges and immunities" clause, in legal circles it's abbreviated as "P&I". Privileges and immunities is a legal term of art which just means "rights". So your privileges and immunities just means your civil and natural rights, but it's a fancier term they used to use 150+ years ago.

For purposes of this post, the biggest deal with the 14A was to ensure that each state respected the rights (the privileges and immunities) of all citizens of the USA. So you had the RKBA in Kansas, even if you were from NY, and you had freedom of religion in Virginia and in Delaware, etc. Very, very powerful stuff at the time. That was the biggest limit that was ever placed on states. Remember, as discussed earlier, states were intended to be all-powerful "the sovereign state" -- no limits on them whatsoever. Well, allowing the state the power to enslave someone was now considered too much power, so we had the Civil War, the North won and decided that the way to limit state power was in part by saying that your P&I had to be respected everywhere in the USA.

Great! All's well, right? Of course not. Time passes, and politicians want more power, and all your pesky rights get in their way, so they're always passing laws, some of which go too far. So those laws get challenged in Court, and SCOTUS is supposed to slap Congress on the wrist, and flush laws which go too far down the toilet, but it turns out SCOTUS didn't always do a very good job (Slaughter-House Cases) for various reasons, so P&I is today sort of like the 10th amendment -- it's been read by past Courts into having virtually no legal power.

But SAF's top lawyer, Alan Gura, believes that's a shame, and that SCOTUS should read life back into P&I. He actually tried to get SCOTUS to buy into a P&I based solution in 2008 for the McDonald case, and even though he won that case (that's the only reason you have any 2A rights today, so remember to say thanks to Mr Gura if you ever see him), SCOTUS didn't bite on adopting real meaning to P&I.

However, a surprising thing happened. Even though the majority opinion in the McDonald case rejected a P&I-based opinion, Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he agreed with Gura, and Thomas said that the privileges and immunities clause in the 14A was indeed the exact reason why the 2nd amendment should be applied against the states.

So it was discovered that at least one member of SCOTUS was on board the P&I train, and willing to stand up for P&I in front of the whole world. So you're saying there's a chance....

Hmmmm....maybe the legal profession was undergoing a change? In 1980, originalism was a joke in the study of law. Today, if your law school doesn't have at least one strong originalist on the faculty, your law school is a joke. So Gura has long been very aware of that trend, and he (and other lawyers on the Supreme Court bar) are hoping that the two new kids on SCOTUS might be on board with a restoration of P&I (that would give 3 votes, with Thomas), and hey, if RBG and Breyer retire, maybe the last 2 needed votes will come on board, or maybe Roberts grows a pair and RBG has a senior moment to get us 5 votes and we can really make some changes and restore some lost liberties.

So that's way, way more than anyone wanted to hear about the P&I clause of the 14A, sorry, but it's always fun to talk about for me, and I've been cooped up too long, and had way too much Franklin's brisket today!

Sorry, I didn't get past your first sentence!
I didn't come to the forum to read a novel.

But in regard to your first sentence!

Yes, SCOTUS does make ruling. But do you think that they pull cases out of thin air to rule on? Nope! Someone who thinks that their rights were infringed upon, brought a lawsuit before the courts. So opinions, do matter.

 

[etmo]

Sorry, I didn't get past your first sentence!
I didn't come to the forum to read a novel.

But in regard to your first sentence!

Yes, SCOTUS does make ruling. But do you think that they pull cases out of thin air to rule on? Nope! Someone who thinks that their rights were infringed upon, brought a lawsuit before the courts. So opinions, do matter.

Your point is spot on -- someone brings a lawsuit. IOW, starts the process of working through the system. And who has the last word in that system? Yup, SCOTUS. And they have ruled on the 2A, and said many anti-gun laws are just fine.

So you're right, we can bring a lawsuit, but that means virtually nothing. It takes years, sometimes decades, for a lawsuit to work it's way through the legal system, and make it to a point where it's possible to ask SCOTUS for their opinion. It takes hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars to bring such a suit. You got that kind of spare cash lying around? Because it's quite the gamble!

SCOTUS gets between 7,000 and 8,000 requests each year, people begging SCOTUS to rule on their case. Of all those cases, SCOTUS will only hear about 80. So we're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more, and wait years and years, just to have a 90% chance that SCOTUS will ignore us, and all that time and money will be wasted. And even if SCOTUS does hear us, they might just rule against us, and that's the largest political gamble of all.

That's the reality of the system. We can't afford it, we don't have the patience for it, and even if we do, it probably won't help us anyways.

That's why we're so lucky to live in TX, a state that respects our RKBA. Spare a thought for those living under terrible regimes in places like CA, NY, MA or IL -- they have to jump through all the above hoops for the tiniest sliver of hope.

 

[avvidclif]

Sorry, I didn't get past your first sentence!
I didn't come to the forum to read a novel.

You don't have anything better to do so read. He's explained the 14th Amendment in a way I can understand how it applies to the 2nd amendment. And how it's been ignored.

 

[Axxe55]

Your point is spot on -- someone brings a lawsuit. IOW, starts the process of working through the system. And who has the last word in that system? Yup, SCOTUS. And they have ruled on the 2A, and said many anti-gun laws are just fine.

So you're right, we can bring a lawsuit, but that means virtually nothing. It takes years, sometimes decades, for a lawsuit to work it's way through the legal system, and make it to a point where it's possible to ask SCOTUS for their opinion. It takes hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars to bring such a suit. You got that kind of spare cash lying around? Because it's quite the gamble!

SCOTUS gets between 7,000 and 8,000 requests each year, people begging SCOTUS to rule on their case. Of all those cases, SCOTUS will only hear about 80. So we're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more, and wait years and years, just to have a 90% chance that SCOTUS will ignore us, and all that time and money will be wasted. And even if SCOTUS does hear us, they might just rule against us, and that's the largest political gamble of all.

That's the reality of the system. We can't afford it, we don't have the patience for it, and even if we do, it probably won't help us anyways.

That's why we're so lucky to live in TX, a state that respects our RKBA. Spare a thought for those living under terrible regimes in places like CA, NY, MA or IL -- they have to jump through all the above hoops for the tiniest sliver of hope.

Edited.

Whatever you think.
I wrote out a lengthy reply to your post. But changed my mind. I have better things to do than argue with you about infringements, or rights, or the law.

You have a nice day.

 

[Axxe55]

You don't have anything better to do so read. He's explained the 14th Amendment in a way I can understand how it applies to the 2nd amendment. And how it's been ignored.

Actually I do have more important things to do.

I don't come here to read novels, and I'm way past old enough to be lectured to by someone on a forum.

These forums are my means of socially interaction with other people. I have been using social distancing for a few years now. Other than my wife, I see very, very few people in person in a month, let alone in a year.

 

[avvidclif]

Once you close your mind to learning???

Stick with The funny pictures then and stay away from the serious discussions.

 

[Axxe55]

Once you close your mind to learning???

Stick with The funny pictures then and stay away from the serious discussions.

I didn't close my mind to learning in the least.

Operative word you used, discussion. etmo is trying to lecture me about what he thinks I should think infringement is.

Bottom line. I will not be lectured to.

Y'all enjoy the thread, cause I got silly pictures to check out!