- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Upon what legal authority can governments enforce shelter...
Posted on 4/2/20 at 1:36 am to Lsutiger2424
Posted on 4/2/20 at 1:36 am to Lsutiger2424
quote:
Identifies the powers of the Governor for meeting the dangers to the State and people presented by emergencies or disasters
Im pretty certain every governor swears an oath to the Constitution. This law has never been tested. Just like the laws of segregation by governors were enforceable, until they were not.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 2:03 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Im pretty certain every governor swears an oath to the Constitution. This law has never been tested. Just like the laws of segregation by governors were enforceable, until they were not.
Well, analyze it then, Mr pretty certain.
You stupid fricks do realize that there are elements and special analysis for clauses in the constitution?
So, analyze it, stfu, or preface your opinions with something like: "Idk wtf I'm talking about, but my dream of what America should be like is..." And fill in your fricking opinion where the dots are located.
We will holler at you guys when we think you can add to the conversation. Hell, I think I saw a "how long does mickey d's fry their fries" thread on the ot yesterday.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 3:41 am to TSLG
The analysis is simple - citizens can do anything they want unless the laws tell them they can’t. Governments, on the other hand, can’t do anything unless specifically given the right.
So show me where emergency exceptions appear In the Constitution to infringe upon the Bill of Rights, Simple Jack. Or how on Earth everybody staying at home and shutting down the State is the least restrictive mean of promoting a governmental purpose. Or what “elements and special analysis” you’ve got that would give a government such a right? (Hint: you’ve got to find the explicit authority for a government action; no one has to find the prohibition for a government NOT to take that action - see above paragraph).
Or better yet, sit quietly in the corner like a good foot soldier who doesn’t question his masters.
So show me where emergency exceptions appear In the Constitution to infringe upon the Bill of Rights, Simple Jack. Or how on Earth everybody staying at home and shutting down the State is the least restrictive mean of promoting a governmental purpose. Or what “elements and special analysis” you’ve got that would give a government such a right? (Hint: you’ve got to find the explicit authority for a government action; no one has to find the prohibition for a government NOT to take that action - see above paragraph).
Or better yet, sit quietly in the corner like a good foot soldier who doesn’t question his masters.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 3:53 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
So show me where emergency exceptions appear In the Constitution to infringe upon the Bill of Rights, Simple Jack. Or how on Earth everybody staying at home and shutting down the State is the least restrictive mean of promoting a governmental purpose. Or what “elements and special analysis” you’ve got that would give a government such a right? (Hint: you’ve got to find the explicit authority for a government action; no one has to find the prohibition for a government NOT to take that action - see above paragraph).
The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution at length on this issue. Either go read those opinions or quit spewing nonsense like the above quote. The constitution isn’t black and white, whether you want it to be or not. State governments have wide latitude when using their emergency police powers, which SCOTUS has determined is encompassed in the Constitution through the 10th amendment and other language.
The constitution is not intended to be all encompassing, it’s a set of guide lines or minimum standards with which other laws and government action must comply. Just like everything else, there are reasonable exceptions. The document is vague and left to interpretation and flexibility—for a reason. Every single right in the constitution is limited by the government, often.
Besides, the government isn’t forcing you to stay in your house. They are asking you to.
This post was edited on 4/2/20 at 4:01 am
Posted on 4/2/20 at 4:18 am to Indefatigable
quote:I’m unfamiliar with cases involving statewide stay-at-home orders and forced economic suicide over a virus, but feel free to point me to such a case.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution at length on this issue
Sure, States have certain police power but to infringe upon a Constitutional right, it has to pass strict scrutiny. So again, tell me how ordering everyone to stay home is less restrictive than say, ordering just the sick people to stay home?
Posted on 4/2/20 at 4:39 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
So again, tell me how ordering everyone to stay home is less restrictive than say, ordering just the sick people to stay home?
Show me where any state is forcing you to stay home. They aren’t. It is not happening. They are asking you to.
This post was edited on 4/2/20 at 4:43 am
Posted on 4/2/20 at 4:42 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
but to infringe upon a Constitutional right, it has to pass strict scrutiny.
Nope. Sometimes, but not always and certainly not here.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 7:19 am to Indefatigable
quote:Tell that to restaurant owners and other “non-essential” workers. JBE didn’t call it a stay at home ask.
Show me where any state is forcing you to stay home. They aren’t. It is not happening. They are asking you to.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 7:21 am to Indefatigable
quote:Don’t be dense. The ones we are talking about - such as the right to assemble - yes, it absolutely must pass strict scrutiny.
Nope. Sometimes, but not always and certainly not here.
Do tell, what other rights do you so unquestionably forfeit?
Posted on 4/2/20 at 7:27 am to Lsutiger2424
quote:
People that keep complaining about it are more aggravating.
And are usually the ones still out socializing...bc they aren’t going to be told what to do
Posted on 4/2/20 at 7:32 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
The Republic is on life support. There's going to be an uprising. And I don't mean some overly dramatic marching in the streets and shooting our way up the steps of our respective capital buildings. There will be a collective demanding by the people of this country to call for clear, definitive government limits regarding executive powers in a state of emergency. These checks and balances already exist for everything else, but somehow an "emergency" (which can mean anything they want, presently) suddenly cancels all of that, and a new set of ever-changing rules take over? That's not what the founders ever intended. And if we don't get this change, then I guess it WILL be time for a new revolution. Something the founders gave us the right to pursue in the 2nd Amendment.
Calm down, Nancy.
You’re getting yourself all worked up.
Next time, try saving some extra money in the bank.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:06 am to NaturalBeam
quote:
such as the right to assemble - yes, it absolutely must pass strict scrutiny.
No, it doesn’t. Not when there is a legitimate government interest and the policy doesn’t discriminate and is as least restrictive/narrowly tailored as possible. The government gets the benefit of the doubt on all of the above, assuming they are acting on reasonably available information. They get even more leeway in an emergency.
Everything currently in force is temporary. You gleefully give up every single right you have under the constitution on a regular basis. None of them have ever been absolute.
The ignorant, selective outrage at the constitutionality of the stay at home orders and “your rights” is getting ridiculous. No one is enjoying it, but the government isn’t shutting the economy down just because it wants to flex.
This post was edited on 4/2/20 at 8:11 am
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:23 am to Indefatigable
quote:You know what that legal standard test is called?
No, it doesn’t. Not when there is a legitimate government interest and the policy doesn’t discriminate and is as least restrictive/narrowly tailored as possible
I’ll give you a hint: it starts with “S” and ends with “trict scrutiny”...
This post was edited on 4/2/20 at 8:38 am
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:27 am to Kafka
quote:
Power proceeds from the barrel of a gun -- Mao Tse Tung
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants -- Thomas Motherfuking Jefferson
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:28 am to nola000
quote:
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants -- Thomas Motherfuking Jefferson
It is starting to look like a cleansing might be in order.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:30 am to Presidio
quote:
Indeed, and how many guns are in private hands vs govt hands?
Yep. It's our "liberty teeth". There's a reason they put it as high as #2 on the list of things for the government not to frick with. Second only to our right to complain about it.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:33 am to Grinder
quote:
Calm down, Nancy.
You’re getting yourself all worked up.
Next time, try saving some extra money in the bank.
Grow up, Peter Pan.
One doesn't simply "save extra money in the bank" if they are living paycheck to paycheck. And, furthermore, There isn't a magic amount of money to put way, that can get you through an indefinite period of time with no work. Without limits on government power, there is no limit on how long they can drag on any narrative they want to invent and call "an emergency".
It's ignorant people like you who get us into these situations, in the first place. You let government walk on you, and you applaud them. Apathy is dangerous at a time like this. Everyone should be angry and demanding their representatives and senators to hold people accountable.
This post was edited on 4/2/20 at 8:35 am
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:38 am to Dizz
quote:
You act like the Supreme Court has never interpreted, limited, or expanded constitutional rights.
Also outside of an actual quarantine the government can’t forcefully keep you inside your home. Governments right now are strongly urging you to stay home. To give less incentive to go out they are closing things and taking actions they actually can enforce.
Posted on 4/2/20 at 8:42 am to abellsujr
quote:
Barely saw any cops on the road and nobody pulled over. It may have changed in the past few days, but so far just seems like it’s just scare tactics
Right now, that's all this is.
It's exactly like the so-called 'mandatory evacuation' for hurricanes. It's just scary language to strongly urge idiots to follow. Anybody with the even a rudimentary understanding of the law know that mandatory evacuations do not mean that it's mandatory that you evacuate.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:08 am to TSLG
quote:
You stupid fricks do realize that there are elements and special analysis for clauses in the constitution?
Its sad when people are so ignorant, that they cant grasp how ignorant they are
Steel seizure case - an executive order took private property. Supreme Court had this to say:
quote:
authority (to act or issue an executive order) is at its apex when his action is based on an express grant of power in the Constitution, in a statute, or both. His action is the most questionable when there is no grant of constitutional authority to him (express or inherent) and his action is contrary to a statute or provision of the Constitution.
and his ACT is CONTRARY to a statue or provision of the Constitution
Executive order 9066 - establishing interment camps for US citizens
quote:
a proclamation formally terminating Executive Order 9066 and apologizing for the internment, stated: "We now know what we should have known then — that evacuation was wrong
concluding that the incarceration of Japanese Americans had not been justified. The report determined that the decision to incarcerate was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership"
Just STFU, when adults are talking from now on
Popular
Back to top


1







