Posted on 04/29/2020 3:43:22 PM PDT by Enlightened1
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at law.cornell.edu ...
If the government locks you out of your business, that is a “taking” under the 5th amendment and they have to pay you “just compensation” for your loss. The lawsuits that are coming are going to be legion. These paycheck protection loans aren’t going to cut it.
Roberts wouldn’t cert the case. Obama told him not too.
This is why they are pushing for legal immunity.
Oh citizen, you are making the classic mistake of reading the text and thinking that’s what it means. Only an Ivy league lawyer can properly tell you what it means. In most cases it means exactly the opposite of what the text literally says.
It’s very complicated. Now here, take your vaccination. /s
The government cannot seek legal immunity for violation of Civil Rights under color of authority. These lockdowns of business are takings under the constitution. The government can’t hide from it’s obligation to pay just compensation for the taking of property. Nor can they avoid liability for civil rights violations.
Trump was smart to push this back on the States. The states that continue to violate the rights of business owners and employees are going to have to pay.
The governors can also be held personally liable for their actions (think Rodney King) as there is personal liability for the actions of government officials and employees who violate Constitutional Rights under color of authority.
Some smart lawyers are going to be getting rich soon. Maybe some stupid governors are going to be bankrupted or incarcerated soon. We can only wish.
Open The Country Now!
.
I got a Lawyer!
The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude.
What is you opinion regarding compulsory military service?
There is no draft.
Now, I know you won't bother educating yourself, but perhaps others will:
The only law that can be enforced is one backed by the threat of violence for non-compliance, and the only freedoms which can be defended are those to which a the threat of violence is a realistic response to their abrogation ...
Yeah well guess what part of ‘”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”’ in the 1A to deny worship for everyone, and changing it to worship of and for COVID-19. Only jerkoff rights that have been protected thst should have been stripped was freedom of the press
I am not sure I agree this is 14th amendment. A Strict Conservative Juris prudence philosophy would see this as a 10th Amendment issue. That which is not clearly defined as he jurisdiction of the Feds defacto falls to the states, as such each State has laws defining who has the authority to order quarantines and lock-downs. So ultimately, I think everyone hear needs to look to their respective State laws to see if their respective Governors are overstepping their State Constitutional authority
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-isolation-statutes.aspx
If there are disputes between states, one does not have a quarantine/lockdown and another doesn’t and their are disputes about commerce between those 2 states, then the Interstate Commerce Clause would kick in and the Feds would have jurisdiction over that.
That is my basic understanding of this, again, I see this more as a 10th vs. 14th amendment issue.
Emergency executive authority does no take away fundamental constitutional rights. It can only be applied to limit them and then the orders are subject to strict scrutiny.
If the government invokes such powers, they must be deemed necessary and the remedy must be applied in the least intrusive way possible.
That is clearly not the case here.
These blanket orders are clearly executive overreach and violate the rights of citizens in the most intrusive way imaginable. As such they are unconstitutional no matter what your link may say otherwise.
I guess you are OK with tyranny. Whatever floats your boat.
This forum is called Free Republic. Are you sure you are at the right place?
The 14th Amendment takes precedence over the 10th Amendment. Where the 10th Amendment gives certain powers to the States, the 14th clearly limits them. The 14th Amendment was designed to limit states rights and guarantee that the States cannot arbitrarily take away the fundamental rights of the citizens of each state.
The government is me. YOU want ME to pay for the illegal actions of politicians. String them up, and leave me alone.
ML/NJ
So if I have this correctly all 50 states have quarantine laws that have never been struck down by any Federal Court, so the issue would be, if I understand you correctly, does the State LockDown mandates that are being implemented have some directives that are in contradiction to the 14th amendment. Would that be a more appropriate way to balance the 14th and 10th amendment issues.
Thanks for proving me right.
I suspect you haven’t lost your business because of some arbitrary Nazi Governor ordering you to close it. You might feel differently if you spent half your life building a business just to have you fear mongering Governor ordering you to close it and in turn sending you into bankruptcy. But you don’t care as long as YOU are safe.
Obviously you think tyranny is just peachy.
I believe in the Constitution. If the government takes your business, they are constitutionally obligated to pay you just compensation, no matter what reason they give you for destroying your livelihood.
Have you even read the Constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.