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

[Ame®icano]

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.

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.

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.

The constitution is a document subject to interpretation of ambiguity, and that power to judge it taken by the USSC (Marburry v Madison) that allows for exigent contingencies to step on constitutional rights. For example take "eminent domain".

Sure, rulings can be overturned, based on interpretation.

 

[Ame®icano]

That is its role "to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves, the people. As in the rights of the Individual to pursue his life in a manner he deems, not a bureaucrat empowered to act stupid when he took his/her oath of office. Promoting is touting something - not restricting someone.

The job of government is to restrict people from doing what they want. That's the very definition of the penal codes they enact. That the general welfare requires that a person is not allowed to take the property of another, or to trick or deceive another out of their property. To restrict how fast one can drive on the public roads.

Government is all about looking at the "general welfare" and restricting the activities that impinge upon it.

Think of the old saying "There ought to be a law." Well laws tell people what they "can't do". It impinges of their freedom to do something. You can't take a big gulp thru airport security.

"The job of government is to restrict people from doing what they want."

Can you point to the Constitution where it says that is the job of the government?

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

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.

How do you "promote the general welfare" while concurrently trampling on the rights gifted to the citizenry?

If you do not understand the general welfare during the times of coronavirus, you are incapable of understanding general welfare. People who are obsessed with themself will never understand anyone's or any group's needs other than their own.
What is your opinion on how Constitutional rights were dealt with during World War II

FDR took a great big crap on the Constitution.

Once? He crapped on it multiple times.

 

[San Souci]

The Constitution has always been optional to tRumplings.

What a crock. It is filthy Democrats who screw with it. ROE is an example. Murdering babies is NOT in the Constitution.

 

[Ame®icano]

The swine flu tests were rolled out quicker, and in greater number. This allowed them to "flatten the curve" so that there were only 1,000 fatalities after six months,
The vaccine then allowed for keeping the next wave from being as deadly. In the end fewer than 20,000 fatalities from H1N1 over a span of two flu seasons.

Prove the tests were rolled out quicker and in greater number. The vaccine wasn't available for a year and a half, dickwad.

I actually got the number part wrong. The tests were rolled out much quicker. We had people working with China at the outbreak, and by the time it reached the US the CDC certified and started sending out tests within two weeks of the first confirmed case.

The number of tests were less than we have now, because the number of tests needed was less than we have now. It was tested for early and often, and unlike today where people are unable to get tested, they had enough tests for the swine flu for everybody who needed one.

Swine flu originated in America, not China. You still haven't posted any evidence to support your claims about testing.

Swine flu originated in Mexico, to be precise.

 

[Ame®icano]

Only if you ignore that our form of government is a Republic, not a pure democracy.

A republic formed with several "compromises" both great and small to turn it from one that had representation proportional to the populations each state represented, to one which gave superior comparative powers to states with the low population density or small overall size.

The Great Compromise gave larger states more say in the House of Representatives by tying representation there to state population, while keeping state representation equal in the Senate by giving each state two votes

The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignore

"to count three out of every five slaves as people "

They were all counted as persons. Representation would be received for 3/5th of those persons.

The 3/5th compromise allowed for preservation of the republic while also confronting the moral and systemic evils of slavery.

Leftist distorted interpretation of the Constitution only intensify the social divide in America.

 

[Ame®icano]

Recession of 1937–1938 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The recession of 1937–1938 was an economic downturn that occurred during the Great Depression in the United States. By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their early 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was slightly lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933.

Roosevelt had been cautious not to run large deficits. In 1937 he actually achieved a balanced budget.

Keynesian economists stated that the recession of 1937 was a result of a premature effort to curb government spending and balance the budget.

FDR didn't have single year with balanced budget. In FY 1937 he had $3 billion deficit, and his lowest deficit was in FY 1938, only $1 billion.

 

[Ame®icano]

Common republican claim, not supported by facts. The economy improved between 1933 and 1936 with FDR's policies in place. It wasn't until 1937 when FDR listened to the conservatives and instead of continuing his policies instead adopted a conservative budget, based on reducing the deficits, did the recovery falter.

From that bastion of Conservatism, UCLA

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.


Pay particular attention to that last line, written FOURTEEN YEARS AGO!

From your working link:

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
December 14, 2015

by Meg Sullivan • UCLA Newsroom

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.




You old link and your new link claim the article was written twice, 11 years apart.

Does it matter if they're both telling the truth?

 

[SweetSue92]

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?

You know what's most disturbing: there are actual long-time conservatives on this board hyperventilating all over the place that yes, it's correct that politicians are telling churches to forgo their First Amendment rights to assemble. Yes, because Virus is Dangerous.

Accompanied by the usual name-calling, panting and general panic.

I mean, I don't know what to say about that. It is exactly at those times when we need to remind people WHY the Constitution is important.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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

Martial law means something completely different than how it is being thrown around. It means that civilian law has broken down & the military system has to take over to maintain order. We are no where near that point.

Laws are required when individuals or institutions trample on the rights of others and act counter to the common good. People who do not like laws are those who trample on others rights and do not act in the common good; criminals and self-absorbed nut cases.
We have many criminals and self-absorbed nut cases on this thread.