Does the executive have a compelling state interest in restricting his right to have mass? If the answer is yes, he can.

There's nothing like "muh Constitution!" from people who don't know constitutional law.

2 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Scruffy

Kansas City

Member since Jul 2011

73174 posts

Posted on 4/21/20 at 7:35 pm to tLSU

quote:
Does the executive have a compelling state interest in restricting his right to have mass? If the answer is yes, he can.

Like I said, truly amazing.

You have executives and police stating that “protesting is non-essential” on top of all this.

I really cannot understand how y’all are perfectly fine with this.

This is the situation where “slippery slope” is actually applicable.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by lsu777

Lake Charles

Member since Jan 2004

32544 posts

Posted on 4/21/20 at 8:06 pm to tLSU

quote:
There's nothing like "muh Constitution!" from people who don't know constitutional law.

Pretty sure there isn't a spot in the Constitution that talks about compelling arguments.

And if it did I'm pretty sure our founders wouldn't define a virus with a statistical mortality rate of of essentially zero as one a compelling argument.

Pastor spell is prolly a piece of shite, usually people like him that have mega churches are, but he isn't a piece of shite for opening his church and allowing those who chose to come worship to come.

And you talk constitutional law...sorry but the Constitution is the Constitution is pretty damn clear. 200+ years of lawyers misinterpreting it doesn't change that fact nor does politician twisting the meaning.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board