U.S. high court rejects church challenges to state pandemic rules

[sparky]

The health and safety guidelines are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Our illustrious governor just posted pages upon pages of 'rules'
some are actually contradictory to federal guidelines

I suspect 50 of them in one room would be quite the event these days....

so you see, like many i find the term 'constitutional' not exactly defined in black or white Clay

rather to me, it's a who watches the watchers issue

~S~

To paraphrase Moynihan, everyone is entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but not to his own facts as to what’s Constitutional.

And the fact is that the health and safety guidelines are perfectly Constitutional, they violate no Constitutional rights, and are not harbingers of the black helicopters coming to get us.

It is indeed that black and white.

seems it's been interpreted at least 2 dozen times since it was written Clay

~S~

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I question why demoquacks are against religious people...well not really

You left loon assholes protesting, looting, stealing, rioting, assaulting, etc...


Wear a mask assholes

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Good news. If they were really christians they would know they dont have to go to church in order to worship god.

It's not that easy for Jews and Catholics though.

Why not? Catholics are christians too right? Just with a stick up their asses.

The lock downs present challenges to things like Communion, confession, Sunday obligation, etc.

Actually not.

Catholics are not required to attend Mass if they have a good faith reason not to – such as being ill or injured.

And clearly avoiding becoming ill during a pandemic is a good faith reason not to attend Mass, separate and apart from the health and safety guidelines.

You're not Catholic.....so stfu, Jones

Goddamn idiot

 

[22lcidw]

Good news. If they were really christians they would know they dont have to go to church in order to worship god.

It's not that easy for Jews and Catholics though.

Why not? Catholics are christians too right? Just with a stick up their asses.

The lock downs present challenges to things like Communion, confession, Sunday obligation, etc.

Actually not.

Catholics are not required to attend Mass if they have a good faith reason not to – such as being ill or injured.

And clearly avoiding becoming ill during a pandemic is a good faith reason not to attend Mass, separate and apart from the health and safety guidelines.

You're not Catholic.....so stfu, Jones

Goddamn idiot

It depends when you were a Catholic growing up and how the teachings were interpreted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The health and safety guidelines are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Our illustrious governor just posted pages upon pages of 'rules'
some are actually contradictory to federal guidelines

I suspect 50 of them in one room would be quite the event these days....

so you see, like many i find the term 'constitutional' not exactly defined in black or white Clay

rather to me, it's a who watches the watchers issue

~S~

To paraphrase Moynihan, everyone is entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but not to his own facts as to what’s Constitutional.

And the fact is that the health and safety guidelines are perfectly Constitutional, they violate no Constitutional rights, and are not harbingers of the black helicopters coming to get us.

It is indeed that black and white.

seems it's been interpreted at least 2 dozen times since it was written Clay

~S~

As intended by the Framers.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of judicial review – codified in Article VI – affords the courts the authority to determine what the Constitution means.

The interpretive authority of the courts is the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic – where the people are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Good news. If they were really christians they would know they dont have to go to church in order to worship god.

It's not that easy for Jews and Catholics though.

Why not? Catholics are christians too right? Just with a stick up their asses.

The lock downs present challenges to things like Communion, confession, Sunday obligation, etc.

Actually not.

Catholics are not required to attend Mass if they have a good faith reason not to – such as being ill or injured.

And clearly avoiding becoming ill during a pandemic is a good faith reason not to attend Mass, separate and apart from the health and safety guidelines.

You're not Catholic.....so stfu, Jones

Goddamn idiot

It depends when you were a Catholic growing up and how the teachings were interpreted.

He's not Catholic. That's patently obvious.

If I want to attend Mass the Constitution guarantees that.

Simple really.... regardless what Jones says

 

[OldLady]

Good news. If they were really christians they would know they dont have to go to church in order to worship god.

It's not that easy for Jews and Catholics though.

Why not? Catholics are christians too right? Just with a stick up their asses.

I think it's the Eating Jesus part. The Jews, I dunno.

 

[sparky]

The health and safety guidelines are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Our illustrious governor just posted pages upon pages of 'rules'
some are actually contradictory to federal guidelines

I suspect 50 of them in one room would be quite the event these days....

so you see, like many i find the term 'constitutional' not exactly defined in black or white Clay

rather to me, it's a who watches the watchers issue

~S~

To paraphrase Moynihan, everyone is entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but not to his own facts as to what’s Constitutional.

And the fact is that the health and safety guidelines are perfectly Constitutional, they violate no Constitutional rights, and are not harbingers of the black helicopters coming to get us.

It is indeed that black and white.

seems it's been interpreted at least 2 dozen times since it was written Clay

~S~

As intended by the Framers.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of judicial review – codified in Article VI – affords the courts the authority to determine what the Constitution means.

The interpretive authority of the courts is the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic – where the people are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

A nation of laws , not men.

Yes i get that Clay....

yet there are limitation(s) on even the rule of law>>>

What are the 5 principles that define the rule of law?
Originally Answered: What are the 5 principles that define the rule of law? ... the establishment of law and order by independent and fairness a judicial system; the efficient and predictable of justice, and clear separation of powers ( legislative, judicial and executive);

ergo, compromise these principals , all the house of constitutional cards folds

~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The health and safety guidelines are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Our illustrious governor just posted pages upon pages of 'rules'
some are actually contradictory to federal guidelines

I suspect 50 of them in one room would be quite the event these days....

so you see, like many i find the term 'constitutional' not exactly defined in black or white Clay

rather to me, it's a who watches the watchers issue

~S~

To paraphrase Moynihan, everyone is entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but not to his own facts as to what’s Constitutional.

And the fact is that the health and safety guidelines are perfectly Constitutional, they violate no Constitutional rights, and are not harbingers of the black helicopters coming to get us.

It is indeed that black and white.

seems it's been interpreted at least 2 dozen times since it was written Clay

~S~

As intended by the Framers.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of judicial review – codified in Article VI – affords the courts the authority to determine what the Constitution means.

The interpretive authority of the courts is the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic – where the people are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

A nation of laws , not men.

Yes i get that Clay....

yet there are limitation(s) on even the rule of law>>>

What are the 5 principles that define the rule of law?
Originally Answered: What are the 5 principles that define the rule of law? ... the establishment of law and order by independent and fairness a judicial system; the efficient and predictable of justice, and clear separation of powers ( legislative, judicial and executive);

ergo, compromise these principals , all the house of constitutional cards folds

~S~

No principles are being ‘compromised’ by implementing the health and safety guidelines.

In this case the churches exercised their right to seek relief from government action in the courts.

The Court reviewed the merits of the case and determined that government acted in accordance with the Constitution.

And when the people’s representatives err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, the courts invalidate those measures consistent with the rule of law.

The people are also at liberty to remove from office their elected representatives through the political process if the people disagree with the government’s actions, regardless whether those actions are Constitutional.

 

[sparky]

In this case the churches exercised their right to seek relief from government action in the courts.

Which would be >>>

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress 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 ...

The people are also at liberty to remove from office their elected representatives through the political process if the people disagree with the government’s actions, regardless whether those actions are Constitutional.

Yes we are Clay , but that ideal is so hopelessly broken....

Unfortunately there will exist little to no real choices where every candidate capitulates to a totalitarian system.

I'm sure you recall similar debates re: patriot act , where that rule of law met constitutional altruism

So this is why many like myself view the constitution through the lense of Orwellian dystopia raft with moral turpitude cloaked in the guise of self righteous cognitive dissonance.

WWTFF Do?

~S~