It Has Started: Activist Court Rewrites Law

[meaner gene]

sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,

The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is based in case law (Marburry V Madison)

and you call mine ironic,,,

their abilities come from the constitution, and as the constitution says ,, only an amendment can change the constitution,,,

The Constitution doesn't specify who can determine a laws constitutionality. That should have been left to the people that wrote it? Right?
Not article 3 judges without that enumerated power.

 

[progressive hunter]

lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition. As long as it is not "permanent" right?

And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact “laws” outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect “temporarily”?

The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.

as long as they dont violate the constitution,,

They don't.

you dont quarantine people that arent sick,, thats called prison,,,

 

[BlackSand]

Freedom in not all that dumb. The same rights exercised by the civil rights protesters all year are the rights that should cover church gatherings.
I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest? Me either, because I think they have that right..absent violence.
Freedom=we decide. Use your freedom wisely--I don't gather, at all. I mask, more to reassure others--even though I've had the Covid..and am in little danger.
But there has to be an end.....soon.

I'm beginning to feel that the left is a bit too free with restrictions, in an emergency that has a clear end in sight. 6 months to herd immunity, most places.

Well Said ...

Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution:
"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."

When The Government hasn't been granted the power to violate the Constitution ... Whether it be the Federal, State or Local Governments ...
The ability to govern one's activities falls directly on the last entity listed in the Tenth Amendment.

The People are allowed to govern themselves and their own activity.
Provide them with the information you may find pertinent, and they will make their own choices in the matter.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.

What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?

it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,

You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.

Bye.

so you know I'm right and are running away,,,

TYPICAL,,,

Wrong. I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.

Have a nice day.

dont you mean "equally educated"???

cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,

I have no idea what your level of education might be, but I've long realized that educated doesn't have to equal smart.

I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,

Who's violating the constitution?

in this case newsom for closing churchs,,,

 

[meaner gene]

What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the **** is that using case law to determine constitutionality?

Because congress has the power to amend (write) the constitution, they should have the power to determine what it means, not the courts.
Right?
But the courts through case law usurped that power.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

 

[progressive hunter]

What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the **** is that using case law to determine constitutionality?

Because congress has the power to amend (write) the constitution, they should have the power to determine what it means, not the courts.
Right?
But the courts through case law usurped that power.

congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,,

at this point you should just give it up,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,

 

[JustAGuy1]

lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition. As long as it is not "permanent" right?

And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact “laws” outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect “temporarily”?

The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.

So the 10th amendment is the supreme amendment and carries with it the power to abrogate all the other amendments.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.

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.​

The First Amendment, as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits states as well as the federal government from violating the people's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that allows any part of government to make up a fake crisis, and to use that fake crisis as an excuse to violate any part of the Constitution

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,

Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.

Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.

 

[progressive hunter]

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,

Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.

Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.

so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,

I think thats a form of fascism,,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

as long as they dont violate the constitution,,

They don't.

I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,

Who's violating the constitution?

Congress [and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all parts of all levels of government] 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.​

 

[Crepitus]

I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?

Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,

Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.

Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.

so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,

I think thats a form of fascism,,,

Huh?? Not sure how you got that out of what i wrote..but no.

My..solution, as you term it--is civility and natural courtesy. I think that if a church wants to worship and accepts the risks..let them do it. I think it's dumb..but it's their choice.
Just like the BLM protesters.

As for smoking..I was defending the right of smokers to smoke..and smoke around those who had no issue with breathing their smoke.

If you are suggesting that a smoker has a right to smoke wherever they wish...you are wrong...you have no right to have your habit somehow take precedence over their health and wishes. The law agrees, BTW.

 

[meaner gene]

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.

 

[Crepitus]

The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

They're stupid. When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk. For NO VIABLE REASON. It's sheer stupidity.

I tend to agree..but it is their Right..to make that decision. You're not going to cure stupid..why are you trying?

They have every right to endanger themselves. They have no right to endanger their friends and families.

 

[BlackSand]

Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.

Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.

so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,

I think thats a form of fascism,,,

The law is not necessarily a matter of what one person or another desires.

If you disagree with the Constitutionality of the law, challenge it in court.
If you are concerned with the intent of the people passing the laws. challenge them in their districts.

If you are dissatisfied with the results you find achievable through either action, understand that you have failed to provide for a better outcome.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.

That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.

then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,

Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.

Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.

so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,

I think thats a form of fascism,,,

Huh?? Not sure how you got that out of what i wrote..but no.

My..solution, as you term it--is civility and natural courtesy. I think that if a church wants to worship and accepts the risks..let them do it. I think it's dumb..but it's their choice.
Just like the BLM protesters.

As for smoking..I was defending the right of smokers to smoke..and smoke around those who had no issue with breathing their smoke.

If you are suggesting that a smoker has a right to smoke wherever they wish...you are wrong...you have no right to have your habit somehow take precedence over their health and wishes. The law agrees, BTW.

what I said was people should be able to decide and if you dont like it you can leave,,,

you choose to point the government gun at them to comply with your desires,,,

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?

Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .

Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?