Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Can you point out one thing Republicans have done to reverse the course, or lessen the impact- how about who was in charge when the 4th amendment was eviscerated? Which "compassionate conservative" was reported to haves said;it's just a goddamn piece of paper- how long are you descendants going to stay in debt to the fed reserve bank?Democrats have not been interested in the constitution only their agenda since the late 60's. So what is new?
Nothing in the Constituion mentions any "compelling governmental interest." That's just a "get out of jail free" card for the Supreme Court when it wants to legalize something that is clearly not sanctioned by the Constitution.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)
It's a strange concept that you want to give acreage, more votes than people.I read something that said that idea would mean LA county would have more say than like 20 states.No, i'm imagining a system where each person of legal age and a citizen of these Unite States, and not the subject of either mental or criminal confinement gets to have a vote for president that carries equal weight against anyone elses vote.
No thanks. The Founding Fathers were much smarter than you and your ilk.
That's the way the Founder's wanted it, douchebag.It's a strange concept that you want to give acreage, more votes than people.I read something that said that idea would mean LA county would have more say than like 20 states.No, i'm imagining a system where each person of legal age and a citizen of these Unite States, and not the subject of either mental or criminal confinement gets to have a vote for president that carries equal weight against anyone elses vote.
No thanks. The Founding Fathers were much smarter than you and your ilk.
The swine flu (H1N1) had tests and a vaccine. And in the end resulted in 20% of the people catching it, but less than 20,000 fatalities from it.Why would the chance be any greater than the chance of contracting the Swine flu was, less than 20%?
You're talking in circles bud...there's a simple distinction to be made...trading free shit for votes is not synonymous with investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of the citizenry while in crisis...Even the most retarded among us can see that.
The big mistake there is the what if rather than what is. Potential worst case scenarios with zero idea what chance does the worst case have to materialize is nothing to shut a nation down overLiberals 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 planestrainsand automobiles.
To do that would show such small percentages of deaths due to Corona only in people who have no other life taking ailments that this overreaction would be revealed as entirely unnecessary. So, those numbers of distinguishing will never come outSo we are all still being isolated by a virus with a death rate similar to the flu. I know the numbers seem high but they are counting every death by a person with the virus as being caused by the flu even it the person would have died anyway. If they would separate the the death of those died by the virus and those that died with the virus we would have an idea of how serious this vires is to people without underlying conditions and maybe we wouldn't unnecessarily bankrupt our nation.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.
Ambiguity is used by lawyers to intentionally misrepresent- the constitution is not ambiguous. It defines (enumerates) what the fed gov't is allowed to do- and what it not allowed to do- obama said it best- it's negative liberty- yes it is. It was intended to be. The Bill of Rights is specific- no ambiguity and only one caveat in the 4th amendment- ANY law subsequent that infringes (no matter how generally) is unconstitutional-when there is ambiguity as to the "intent" of the law.
Cool...go with that spin.You're talking in circles bud...there's a simple distinction to be made...trading free shit for votes is not synonymous with investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of the citizenry while in crisis...Even the most retarded among us can see that.
Actually the difference in your model is between a politician sayng vote for me and i'll give you free shit, and a politician who says vote for me because I already gave you more free shit then anybody.
If you die from that heart attack and you are determined to have had Corona also then you are a Corona death. It’s a solid way to get big Corona numbersSo we are all still being isolated by a virus with a death rate similar to the flu. I know the numbers seem high but they are counting every death by a person with the virus as being caused by the flu even it the person would have died anyway.
You have that wrong. They do no test people after they died to determine if they had the virus. They only test those presenting to the hospitals with the symptoms of the coronavirus.
If you go to the hospital for a heart attack, you aren't tested.
Black robed idiots are no more qualified to understand simple English than any adult who has any reading comprehension skills- they're former lawyers, they paid others to teach them to lie, albeit legally, to make ambiguous seem the norm. Legal and moral rarely meet. ALL laws are predicated on what if- the only thing wrong with the constitution is 1), a lack of comprehending simple English, and (2), no means to punish malfeasance by those who don't abide by it- that they take an oath, in the affirmative, to do the job to the best of their ability speaks to their learning credentials which as lawyers they claim to be higher educated- yet, they all attended to same classes, took the same tests and apparenltly got their sheep skin claiming them victotrious in their struggle to comply- to ambiguity.Where are the lawsuits being presented to the SC?
The vaccine wasn't available until a year and a half from the time they decided to start working on it.The swine flu (H1N1) had tests and a vaccine. And in the end resulted in 20% of the people catching it, but less than 20,000 fatalities from it.Why would the chance be any greater than the chance of contracting the Swine flu was, less than 20%?
The fire in movie theater is so old and tired and irrelevant. That is not speech, it’s an act. It’s to create panic.Nothing in the Constituion mentions any "compelling governmental interest." That's just a "get out of jail free" card for the Supreme Court when it wants to legalize something that is clearly not sanctioned by the Constitution.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)
As for yelling "fire" in a movie theatre, the owners can easily handle that problem by posting a notice to people not to do it unless there is a real fire, otherwise they will be held accountable. The SC didn't need to overthrow the Constitution to handle the problem.
They knew it went against the "ideals of democracy," moron. They despised mob rule. That's why they created a Republic.
The Constitution states "promote the general Welfare" of the citizens. If you exercise what you see as your individual right and it actually hurt the common welfare, that is counter to the Constitution. Selfish individuals like yourself, focus on your needs and ignore a specific purpose of the Constitution, promote the general Welfare of the citizens.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?
So you are of the belief that China was able to stem the infection and their reports of less than 82,000 infected and less than 3,500 died are true?
How then do you explain the fact that there are 21 million less cell phone users in China today than before the Covid-19 was identified and became a pandemic? That is especially when Cellphones are an indispensable part of life in China. Dealing with the government for banking, pensions and social security, buying train tickets, shopping, health records, etc. no matter what people want to do, they are required to use cellphones.
How do you "promote the general welfare" while concurrently trampling on the rights gifted to the citizenry?The Constitution states "promote the general Welfare" of the citizens. If you exercise what you see as your individual right and it actually hurt the common welfare, that is counter to the Constitution. Selfish individuals like yourself, focus on your needs and ignore a specific purpose of the Constitution, promote the general Welfare of the citizens.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?
So you are of the belief that China was able to stem the infection and their reports of less than 82,000 infected and less than 3,500 died are true?
How then do you explain the fact that there are 21 million less cell phone users in China today than before the Covid-19 was identified and became a pandemic? That is especially when Cellphones are an indispensable part of life in China. Dealing with the government for banking, pensions and social security, buying train tickets, shopping, health records, etc. no matter what people want to do, they are required to use cellphones.
As Ronald Reagan said, Trust but verify. We have intelligence capabilities to listen to everything happening in China and to determine what the facts on the ground are. But only the top levels of government are privy to that information.
