What specific directive overrides our constitutional rights right now? Has the constitution become arbitrary?

[BrokeLoser]

Politicians have ORDERED us to pretend we don’t have rights...Do we follow their orders without any pushback or do we challenge their right to impose such orders?
What do concessions such as theses lead to?

 

[Crepitus]

The Constitution has always been optional to tRumplings.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The Constitution can be suspended legally only by declaration of martial law.

 

[Seawytch]

Politicians have ORDERED us to pretend we don’t have rights...Do we follow their orders without any pushback or do we challenge their right to impose such orders?
What do concessions such as theses lead to?

Shut up and just stay home.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution can be suspended legally only by declaration of martial law.

And yet Comrade De Blasio is shitting all over the 1st Amendment in NY City.

 

[Maxdeath]

The Constitution can be suspended legally only by declaration of martial law.

And yet Comrade De Blasio is shitting all over the 1st Amendment in NY City.

Democrats have not been interested in the constitution only their agenda since the late 60's. So what is new?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Politicians have ORDERED us to pretend we don’t have rights...Do we follow their orders without any pushback or do we challenge their right to impose such orders?
What do concessions such as theses lead to?

Shut up and just stay home.

I realize that following unlawful command is simple for the pieces of shit who have conceded their asses to Father Government...but what about the rest of us good real Americans whom understand that our nation is pillared by that pesky old document you hate?

 

[Nostra]

The Constitution has always been optional to tRumplings.

Cuomo is a Republican?

 

[HenryBHough]

We haven't had a constitution since OKP tore the original off the wall of the (once) White House, shredded and smoked it.

 

[Doc7505]

The Constitution has always been optional to tRumplings.

On the contrary, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution, claiming that, they want to abolish the electoral college and pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. It's not Republicans that have threatened Supreme Court Justices.
It's the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA that continues to attack the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution including the Electoral College.
It was the PMS/DSA Leftist President #44 that chose to "Fundamentally Transform America" into a Marxist Socialist State....

 

[rich stacy]

Politicians have ORDERED us to pretend we don’t have rights...Do we follow their orders without any pushback or do we challenge their right to impose such orders?
What do concessions such as theses lead to?

Every part of the constitution, especially the amendments, are a fundamental basis for our laws. But as nobody could forsee every possible future happenstance, the USSC has repeatedly ruled that even a strict interpretation does not stand if there is a "compelling government interest" against it.
It's the classic case of a law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, being in direct contradiction to the 1st amendment right to free speech.

But these exceptions are not limitless, and there needs to be a showing of how "compelling" that government interest is. In overturning the Stolen Valor law (United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), United States Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Stolen Valor Act)

 

[rich stacy]

On the contrary, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution, claiming that, they want to abolish the electoral college and pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. It's not Republicans that have threatened Supreme Court Justices.

To be fair to the constitution, such a scheme as the electoral college created was as constitutional as the 3/5 ths apportionment of slaves to the voting power of states. Legal because the constitution specifically allowed it, while in general rejecting any other such scheme to be put into law. The idea of giving small states more political power than their population numbers would cede to them goes against the ideals of a democracy.

As to the packing of the supreme court, this was tried and failed as an obvious political influence, but since then the court has been expanded from 9 circuits to which a justice is assigned, to 13 such appellate courts, thus requiring justices to oversee multiple circuits. So returning the court to one justice per circuit would not be a case of "court packing" for political reasons.

 

[Doc7505]

On the contrary, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution, claiming that, they want to abolish the electoral college and pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. It's not Republicans that have threatened Supreme Court Justices.

To be fair to the constitution, such a scheme as the electoral college created was as constitutional as the 3/5 ths apportionment of slaves to the voting power of states. Legal because the constitution specifically allowed it, while in general rejecting any other such scheme to be put into law. The idea of giving small states more political power than their population numbers would cede to them goes against the ideals of a democracy.

As to the packing of the supreme court, this was tried and failed as an obvious political influence, but since then the court has been expanded from 9 circuits to which a justice is assigned, to 13 such appellate courts, thus requiring justices to oversee multiple circuits. So returning the court to one justice per circuit would not be a case of "court packing" for political reasons.

What you omitted in regard to the establishment of the Electoral College, is the fact that States were allowed to make their individual contribution in voting for presidents rather than the majority of the population. Democrats have through the years modified the independence of individual states by electing Senators and not by appointment of Senators by the governors of the States.
There's no problem with the expansion of the Judicial Circuit Courts. There has always been a shortage of judges in that area.

 

[rich stacy]

What you omitted in regard to the establishment of the Electoral College, is the fact that States were allowed to make their individual contribution in voting for presidents rather than the majority of the population.

What you omitted is that the original scheme under which the electoral college worked did not allow for "the people" to be at all involved in the selection of either president or senator. They had the peoples house, and that's all. They left it to the leaned men (their elected state representatives) to make the choice for them.

Subsequent constitutional amendments seeking to fix the problem, have actually made it worse. Changing the choice being not from the learned looking out for the state they represent, to the people carrying the electoral clout of their state, voting their own prides and prejudices.

Democrats have through the years modified the independence of individual states by electing Senators and not by appointment of Senators by the governors of the States.

That was a bipartisan act, passed in the 62nd congress by both the democratic controlled house and republican controlled senate. In addition to the 3/4ths of states ratifying the 17th amendment.

 

[cutter]

It's clear we are now a nation of sheep willing giving up our God Given Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I think our President is being given bad advice and hopefully he will realize this soon. If not I fear we have lost our Republic.
It seems that once you lose a right you never really get it back. We used to have a right to free assembly and a right to attend the Church of our choice but now we can only do those things if our government allows it.
We have now given the government the power to restrict our movement to what the government allows. No more gatherings of like minded people able to discuss problems that interest them. Our Republic was by created by like minded people meeting in taverns and Churches a couple centuries ago, and we now have given up the Right to meet in those same locations by order of the government.
I think we may have become too complacent in guarding our Rights and Liberty's and have allowed progressives to chip away at them to the point they can now restrict us to our homes by order of our government. I'm afraid we have lost our Republic.

 

[Crepitus]

The Constitution has always been optional to tRumplings.

On the contrary, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution, claiming that, they want to abolish the electoral college and pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. It's not Republicans that have threatened Supreme Court Justices.
It's the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA that continues to attack the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution including the Electoral College.
It was the PMS/DSA Leftist President #44 that chose to "Fundamentally Transform America" into a Marxist Socialist State....

Silliness. There is a situation here.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liberals assert they have rights to assure they don’t catch this (2.5% chance via 100% suppression) and that their “right” to remain virus free does squelch centuries old constitutional and legal rights of others

 

[rich stacy]

It's clear we are now a nation of sheep willing giving up our God Given Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

We used to have a right to free assembly and a right to attend the Church of our choice but now we can only do those things if our government allows it.

We have now given the government the power to restrict our movement to what the government allows. No more gatherings of like minded people able to discuss problems that interest them. Our Republic was by created by like minded people meeting in taverns and Churches a couple centuries ago, and we now have given up the Right to meet in those same locations by order of the government.

Many flaws in your thinking. The first is that like in WWII as in this pandemic war, the government is again restricting travel. We are but a step from the imposition of rationing of vital goods.

Secondly the idea of the people meeting in churches and taverns has been technologically replaced, as this forum you're posting on attests to. Ironic that you arguing against doing what you're doing remotely and advocate requiring meeting face to face to accomplish such a meeting of minds.

 

[rich stacy]

Liberals assert they have rights to assure they don’t catch this (2.5% chance via 100% suppression) and that their “right” to remain virus free does squelch centuries old constitutional and legal rights of others

That 2.5% chance is based on occurring under 100% suppression. It you model pandemics without such mitigation you find it's a 30% - 60% chance of catching the coronavirus flu, with a fatality rate greater than previous strains.

Lasting from January 1918 through December 1920, it infected 500 million people—about a quarter of the world's population. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million

And this before the age of planes trains and automobiles.

 

[Mr Natural]

I realize that following unlawful command is simple for the pieces of shit who have conceded their asses to Father Government...but what about the rest of us good real Americans whom understand that our nation is pillared by that pesky old document you hate?

You mean the one that talks domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare right in the first sentence?

That document?