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

[Snouter]

...implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP.

On the contrary, sick and only sick individuals were aggressively quarantined back in the day. Healthy people were absolutely not. Otherwise every single ship to America back in the day arriving at New York or San Francisco would be locked down. Never happened.

 

[Snouter]

justinacolmena, US citizens in California and Pennsylvania and other states are trying to impeach or recall the creepy politicians in place who are destroying the American way of life.

 

[forkup]

[/QUOTE]

Before you jump in here it would probably be helpful if you read the entire conversation. See it is Bob who claims there is no exception provided in the constitution for people being denied there freedom and I gave the example of people being jailed to show how wrong that position is. Also, how is that argument Ad hominem?

forkup, the US Constitution does not deny freedom for any US citizen. Your "example" of a US citizen lawfully convicted of a crime being denied freedom is an ad hominem. Take a class in logical fallacies or whatever. Your inability to grasp common sense is not my problem.

Restating the same premise without attempting to substantiate it is a logical fallacy. Argument by Repetition
Ad hominem attacks fall in 2 categories. One is attacking the person instead of the argument. I'll illustrate.

Your inability to grasp common sense is not my problem.

Second Catagory is appealing to feelings instead of intellect. How is stating that states and the federal government reserve the right to deprive citizens of their right to freedom through incarceration when they commit crimes appealing to feelings? Definition of AD HOMINEM

forkup, the US Constitution does not deny freedom for any US citizen. Your "example" of a US citizen lawfully convicted of a crime being denied freedom is an ad hominem.

Do you realize you managed too contradicted yourself here? Either the constitution doesn't allow denying of freedom for any US citizens or it allows it as long as he's lawfully convicted of a crime. Both can not be true.[/QUOTE]

 

[forkup]

...implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP.

On the contrary, sick and only sick individuals were aggressively quarantined back in the day. Healthy people were absolutely not. Otherwise every single ship to America back in the day arriving at New York or San Francisco would be locked down. Never happened.

Here you try another contradiction, claiming that the constitution doesn't allow for any citizen being denied there freedom and here implying that you agree they can as long as the person you deny freedom is sick.

By the way, also factually wrong non-sick people were quarantined to when there was a risk of spreading disease. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America

 

[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....

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.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

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

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.
And don't be mincing my words or intent...….I am saying IF you are sick or test positive, then yes YOU should be quarantined or isolated from the general population so those that are healthy can continue their lives instead of being forced to stay home because a small fraction of the population might be sick.

My dad had TB back in the 40's, he and others like him were forced to stay in an 'asylum' facility for months......away from his family, job and the general population. It was unfortunate for those effected and their families and lives in general...……..but it didn't take the rest of the world with it either like is being done now.

 

[whitehall]

The Bill of Rights don't work anymore?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Which he obviously has done in every rambling post of his,ignore truth.the fact that a certain poster that is a shill for the government liked one of his posts,speaks volumes.lol

 

[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.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

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

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.
And don't be mincing my words or intent...….I am saying IF you are sick or test positive, then yes YOU should be quarantined or isolated from the general population so those that are healthy can continue their lives instead of being forced to stay home because a small fraction of the population might be sick.

My dad had TB back in the 40's, he and others like him were forced to stay in an 'asylum' facility for months......away from his family, job and the general population. It was unfortunate for those effected and their families and lives in general...……..but it didn't take the rest of the world with it either like is being done now.

I didn't mince your words on intent. You asked me to show you something. Using my own wording in a way that I took as condescending. Not that I mind since when I used it I have to admit that wording was used the same way. So I simply did and answered your question on its merit by giving examples of healthy people being quarantined in the US, basically throughout its history. Something I think you assumed didn't happen.

The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.

I have to ask you now. How do you feel this is completely different? If your goal is to prevent a disease from spreading within the general population by quarantining, and the disease you are trying to prevent from spreading has a long incubation period and the ability to be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic. Quarantining of everybody and I use that term lightly since some people still work and almost all are allowed out of their house to do essential tasks. Seems little different and arguably less severe than measures taken in the past.

By the way, why aren't you mentioning the 1918 pandemic and the measures taken then? They included much of the same measures taken now and yet you keep on asserting that this situation is unheard of.

 

[forkup]

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.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Which he obviously has done in every rambling post of his,ignore truth.the fact that a certain poster that is a shill for the government liked one of his posts,speaks volumes.lol

Enlighten me then, what "truth" have I ignored? And feel free to "ramble".

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

It's beyond just America Snouter

It's global >>>>

GPMB

Global Preparedness Monitoring Board

apps.who.int

and these folks are heavily funded by the world bank

~S~

 

[easyt65]

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

They are unnecessary since the US Constitution exists and these overzealous, over-reaching socialist edicts violated the Constitution. We just need people with the courage to step forward and declare these oppressive rules are null and void. We also need people to go to the polls in November and vote the Constitutional violators, like Whitmer, out of office.

More and more the elections coming up are about protecting the US Constitution and Freedom and less about 'named' / 'known' candidates and career politicians.

.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

It sounds like you are in obama suppporter,uh you obviously never have seen the Obama deception And are not aware how he took a shit on the constitution same as his pal bush did and lied to the people saying he would reverse bush’s dreconian policy’s when instead,he expanded them

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Which he obviously has done in every rambling post of his,ignore truth.the fact that a certain poster that is a shill for the government liked one of his posts,speaks volumes.lol

Enlighten me then, what "truth" have I ignored? And feel free to "ramble".

Ignoring how blaylock has countered everything you said and took you to school is the truth you ignored posting babble after babble that doesn’t disprove him on anything is rambling

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

And how ignorant and gullible must someone like you be, to believe what a judge says, when the Constitution is easily available for you to read and study, so that you can see for yourself what it says, and how it is irreconcilable with what a judge says?

Good point. And the irony is that judges at all levels of courts have a responsibility and oath to protect the US Constitution first and foremost. Of course for decades now, democrat scum judges presided over "activist courts" which attempt to legislate which is the job of state and federal legislators, not judges.

It was an excellent point

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It is the height of arrogance to not just claim you know better than all of them but that it takes only average intelligence to be able to categorically state they are all wrong.

I will admit that I am, at times, a very arrogant person. But I doubt if I have ever achieved the level of arrogance routinely demonstrated by corrupt judges, who presume to tell us that the Constitution means something that is very much contrary to what I can read, with my own eyes. Certainly, when I can read that the Constitution asserts certain rights, forbids government from violating these rights, and states no circumstances under which government is allowed to violate these rights, or to violate the Constitution in general, how arrogant is a judge to presume to tell me that government is allowed to do what the Constitution clearly says it is not?

And how ignorant and gullible must someone like you be, to believe what a judge says, when the Constitution is easily available for you to read and study, so that you can see for yourself what it says, and how it is irreconcilable with what a judge says?

You nailed it,could not have said it any better myself

 

[bendog]

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.

Because sanity still holds. How Philly’s shutdown saved thousands of lives, according to Drexel researchers | Coronavirus Newsletter

 

[forkup]

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.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Which he obviously has done in every rambling post of his,ignore truth.the fact that a certain poster that is a shill for the government liked one of his posts,speaks volumes.lol

Enlighten me then, what "truth" have I ignored? And feel free to "ramble".

Ignoring how blaylock has countered everything you said and took you to school is the truth you ignored posting babble after babble that doesn’t disprove him on anything is rambling

Those are assertions you aren't supporting.

BoB's main assertion is the following. The constitution doesn't allow for exceptions regarding the right of states to deny a citizen the right for life, liberty, or property. My assertion is that it does. Namely, if the states allow for due process when those rights are taken away.

What you call rambling is me actually not just making assertions, but supporting those assertions. Something that is part of having an actual debate.

Sadly doing so makes what I say a bit longer. And most likely not for someone who is here for the reason of being a cheerleader for other people's thoughts. To each his own I guess.

 

[Zander]

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.

We the people need to demand it. Write letters, send emails, and faxes to your Congresscritters and Senatwhores.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Good point. And the irony is that judges at all levels of courts have a responsibility and oath to protect the US Constitution first and foremost. Of course for decades now, democrat scum judges presided over "activist courts" which attempt to legislate which is the job of state and federal legislators, not judges.

It is important to note that even those with the legitimate power and duty to legislate are also bound to the Constitution. They have no more authority to pass legislation that violates the Constitution than judges have to issue rulings that violate the Constitution.