I’m aware that the government often usurps our natural rights in the name of “emergency”. That doesn’t mean that this is what ought to be happening. Our Founders would have never stood for the usurpations we accept as a matter of course today. Sure, the government gives itself the right to do certain things when it claims an emergency exists. How then do we speak of actually having rights when they can be easily taken away?
Yes I engaged intentionally in some hyperbole to make my point, but you seem to miss my point. The government isn’t killing people or wantonly destroying property YET. But this notion that the government can declare an emergency then take whatever action needed to deal with it is a dangerous one that could lead to such situations. You’re relying on government to restrain itself; I think that’s naive. As the government gains more power over the subjects, it will only be emboldened to seize more.
It’s actually not that difficult to come up with scenarios in which my hyperbolic examples seem much more plausible. A Rat POTUS (God help us, maybe AOC someday) gets elected. She declares climate change to be an emergency. Your house is not energy efficient enough - gotta destroy it. Her “experts” say that the only way to avert disaster is by severe population decline, at least that’s what the models say. We have a big national lottery - the “winners” get rounded up and shot. After all, it’s an emergency and everyone will die unless some are killed.
Don’t tell me it can’t happen. Ten years ago I never dreamed that the First Amendment would be blatantly abridged the way it has. If you stay in your car, you will NOT spread the virus. Yet here we are prosecuting people for having drive in church services, thereby restricting a perfectly safe free expression of religion.
you are confusing natural rights as Jefferson referred to in the declaration with the bill of rights in the constitution granted by the founders.
Difficult to respond to and manage and resolve an emergency without some restrictions. Would you not have enclosed and shut down south central LA during the watts riot and impose a curfew, when the mob threatened the greater city and some were draining to the site with guns brandished? you would have lost more lives and property to not do so. Could residence of Paradise CA re-enter during the forest fire, of course not.
I believe you are responding emotionally and without reason considering what we need from the government during emergencies. in war time, many rights were restricted. Even habeas corpus if the congress approves, can be suspended.
The degree of opposition to emergency powers here, is because people think the CURRENT response is not the right one.
I am speaking generally about emergency powers and many here refuse to admit what has been needed and done historically.
Any power can be abused. that’s why we put the power in ELECTED officials, the sheriff, the governor, the president. All can be removed or overridden by the legislative branches and some courts.