Why Is There No Legislation Introduced To Prevent Lockdowns or Shutdowns in the Future?

[Seawytch]

Kinda like my kids WHAT IF QUESTIONS...........What if .........what if......squack.

As I said..........people would naturally stay the hell away if it was killing like that.......No one runs into a burning building..................And Ebola was a BS example........it killed quick.......killed the host quick.....they tend to not spread because they are LETHAL

That is NOT THE QUESTION NOW...........we are locked down for HYPE.......businesses are destroyed for HYPE.

Wait...so all that screaming about Ebola just a few years ago BY REPUBLICANS...was just partisan hype?

Ebola made it here............news to me.......never seen it.

Republicans take aim at U.S. Ebola response after fourth case emerges

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...than-theyve-been-about-coronavirus-heres-why/

Maybe I didn't know that back then because the MSM wasn't trolling the shit everyday like now............hmmm

I didn't know we had any cases here...............Funny how the Media picks and chooses what to hype.

Or maybe you were too caught up in attacking Obama over the four cases like the rest of the shitstain GOP.

 

[eagle1462010]

Kinda like my kids WHAT IF QUESTIONS...........What if .........what if......squack.

As I said..........people would naturally stay the hell away if it was killing like that.......No one runs into a burning building..................And Ebola was a BS example........it killed quick.......killed the host quick.....they tend to not spread because they are LETHAL

That is NOT THE QUESTION NOW...........we are locked down for HYPE.......businesses are destroyed for HYPE.

Wait...so all that screaming about Ebola just a few years ago BY REPUBLICANS...was just partisan hype?

Ebola made it here............news to me.......never seen it.

Republicans take aim at U.S. Ebola response after fourth case emerges

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...than-theyve-been-about-coronavirus-heres-why/

Maybe I didn't know that back then because the MSM wasn't trolling the shit everyday like now............hmmm

I didn't know we had any cases here...............Funny how the Media picks and chooses what to hype.

Or maybe you were too caught up in attacking Obama over the four cases like the rest of the shitstain GOP.

Or maybe you are full of shit and don't admit that the MSM covered for Obama and not Trump.

Did the country get shut down.......did the Media attack Obama daily.......no they didn't......

OH SHIT.......HIDE........A CORONA JUST WENT BY.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

There already is legislation. Its called the bill of rights and the constitution.

 

[Lesh]

.did the Media attack Obama daily.......no they didn't......

REPUBLICANS and right wing media (Fox News) absolutely did and the MSM followed their lead like they always do

Did the country get shut down

It wasn't required because of FAST....COMPETENT action by an Administration that took it seriously

 

[Lesh]

Republicans take aim at U.S. Ebola response after fourth case emerges

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...than-theyve-been-about-coronavirus-heres-why/

Thank you for looking that up.

Of course the Trumpers will ignore and pretend they DIDN'T freak out over Ebola

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

 

[forkup]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

 

[Lesh]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

 

[busybee01]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

You are a typical Trump lying weasel. Lockdowns work. New Zealand did it early and in 49 days they have had 21 deaths. Now they are looking at a gradual re-opening. Texas has seen a increase in cases since they opened up.

 

[busybee01]

Why would it need too? The laws already on the books allow them to take measures to protect the population. Nothing requires them to specify. Judges have acknowledged this right regardless of party affiliation. I gave you an open-ended challenge. Find me a judge who supports your assertion that taking those measures are unconstitutional.

Here it is, in black and white, as clear as it can possibly be.

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 of grievances.​

That' the First Amendment. And here's Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies this prohibition to the states as well as the federal government.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

The Constitution makes it absolutely clear. The people have a right to peaceably assemble, and government at all levels is forbidden from violating this right. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.

No opinion from any judge is needed to establish this as fact, nor does any judge have the authority to overturn it. This is the highest law in this nation. It takes precedence over any legislative act, over any executive order,and over any opinion or ruling rendered by any court.

Anyone at any level of government who seeks to violate this is no better than the lowest criminal.

You are the lowest criminal.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact as a former President remarked. The4re is also a general welfare clause in the Consttution. The general welfare can trump other parts of the Constitution. It is well known that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. In natural disasters Governors can declare curfews. It is not cut and dried as you claim it is.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's why the constitution has allowed for mechanisms to amend itself. Interpretation of the constitution tough is still the sole responsibility of the judicial branch. The constitution itself clearly states this.

Perhaps it seems that way to an illiterate cretin such as yourself of, but most of the Constitution was written in very clear, plain language, with the intent that a common man of average literacy should be able to read and understand it. If you find the Constitution difficult to understand, then the problem is with you, not with the Constitution, and not with any of us who, possessing at least basic literacy skills, have the ability to read it and understand what it very clearly says.

 

[IM2]

The First Amendment already prohibits such shutowns.

Where government openly refuses to obey the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law, what makes you think that this same government would obey a lesser law which only restates what the Constitution already makes clear?

What we need to to criminally prosecute corrupt public servants who abuse the power of their office to violate the rights of the people.

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

They can't. These are lunatics talking crazy.

 

[lennypartiv]

Well, stay-at-home mandates are important tools in fighting a novel virus that no one has immunity to (and apparently even when you acquire the virus, you might still get it again).

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here you are again taking for yourself the authority to INTERPRET the constitution. And no it isn't clear. I'm not a lawyer but I do know that your first bit applies to congress NOT the states. And your second bit clearly states that they can abridge freedom as long as they exercise "due process". Those that are trained in the law can probably find more objections to your assertions.

A person of average literacy and intelligence would be able to understand what the portion that I quoted of the Fourteenth Amendment is saying, especially if he knew the context in which it was enacted. As originally written, the First Amendment did indeed only apply to the federal government, and not to states. After slavery was ended, states were denying to former slaves, the basic rights that whites were able to take for granted, including those covered in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were to put an end to this, by holding the states responsible as well as the federal government, for upholding these rights for all citizens.

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to all levels of government, and states are now just as forbidden to violate these rights as the federal government is.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why? Because they plan on doing this again on a deeper scale. They were pleasantly surprised that the people just laid down like cattle.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact as a former President remarked.

It wasn't a President. It was a disgruntled Supreme Court Justice, in a dissent on the losing side of a case involving free speech. He was wrong, and a majority of his colleagues agreed that he was wrong. Interestingly, in the same dissent in which he devised this bullshit statement, he quoted Adolf Hitler; make of that what you will. It has gone on to be a popular catchphrase among corrupt, criminal pieces of shit who like to make excuses for trashing the Constitution, but it has no legal standing, nor any ethical standing with anyone who is not such a criminal piece of shit.

Merely quoting that statement, and treating it as if it has any standing, tells me all that I need to know about you.

The4re [sic] is also a general welfare clause in the Consttution [sic]. The general welfare can trump other parts of the Constitution.

Bullshit.

Nothing in the General Welfare clause states any power, and certainly nothing in it states (nor even implies) any conditions under which government is authorized to violate the rules and rights that the Constitution goes on to lay out.

 

[forkup]

That's why the constitution has allowed for mechanisms to amend itself. Interpretation of the constitution tough is still the sole responsibility of the judicial branch. The constitution itself clearly states this.

Perhaps it seems that way to an illiterate cretin such as yourself of, but most of the Constitution was written in very clear, plain language, with the intent that a common man of average literacy should be able to read and understand it. If you find the Constitution difficult to understand, then the problem is with you, not with the Constitution, and not with any of us who, possessing at least basic literacy skills, have the ability to read it and understand what it very clearly says.

Illiterate cretin no less?? Does this apply to all judges that have ruled against your assertions?

I'll ask you again, what are the credentials that allow you this special insight of clarity that none but you can see? Supernatural reading comprehension? An IQ of 300? The voice of God? Enlighten me.

 

[forkup]

Here you are again taking for yourself the authority to INTERPRET the constitution. And no it isn't clear. I'm not a lawyer but I do know that your first bit applies to congress NOT the states. And your second bit clearly states that they can abridge freedom as long as they exercise "due process". Those that are trained in the law can probably find more objections to your assertions.

A person of average literacy and intelligence would be able to understand what the portion that I quoted of the Fourteenth Amendment is saying, especially if he knew the context in which it was enacted. As originally written, the First Amendment did indeed only apply to the federal government, and not to states. After slavery was ended, states were denying to former slaves, the basic rights that whites were able to take for granted, including those covered in the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were to put an end to this, by holding the states responsible as well as the federal government, for upholding these rights for all citizens.

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to all levels of government, and states are now just as forbidden to violate these rights as the federal government is.

Unless of course, they apply due process, in which case states CAN abridge freedom. See you can not claim "no exception" while citing the fact that rules for exceptions are clearly stated.

 

[forkup]

The First Amendment already prohibits such shutowns.

Where government openly refuses to obey the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law, what makes you think that this same government would obey a lesser law which only restates what the Constitution already makes clear?

What we need to to criminally prosecute corrupt public servants who abuse the power of their office to violate the rights of the people.

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional.

They can't. These are lunatics talking crazy.

It's even worse Bobby here simply claims that he is so superior in his understanding of the constitution that the fact that he can't is irrelevant.

 

[toobfreak]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Where do you think you're living, in JAPAN?

Japan lived through tyranny and is now moving toward a freer society.
America was a free society, now being moved toward tyranny.