May I also make a simple prediction: there will be numerous lawsuits about the way those laws were carried out. Some of those suits will advance all the way to the Supreme Court -- the final arbiter of what's constitutional or not. No doubt, some of the more draconian measures will have been ruled unconstitutional. OTOH, most of those measures will be ruled constitutional. The latter is (IMHO) a safe bet because these laws have been around so long, that they've survived many challenges.
The key thing that you, and several other posters here, are missing is that, while these laws limit some of your freedoms, they aren't the only laws that do so. For instance, you have the right to bear arms (and, this Canadian envies your 2nd Amendment, given what our idiot PM has just pulled). You have the right to bear arms; however, you do not have the right to stroll down the street with a revolver, blithely playing Russian Roulette by pointing the gun at passersby. Given that carriers can be asymptomatic, everyone should assume that their (figurative) 'gun' is loaded. It's that simple. Your civil rights do not trump others' inherent right to life.
Dear Brother or Sister to the north, thanks for the reply...
You point out a very important point in your 3rd paragraph in that the second amendment does “...not have the right to stroll down the street with a revolver, blithely playing Russian Roulette by pointing the gun at passersby.” Which is correct in that doing so violates the constitutional right to life and that life not being threatened. It’s also called acting responsibly and with due regard. In other words, the second amendment did not need that specified in that it acknowledged the right to arms and the assumption of the right as acknowledged comes with acting responsibly with that right.
In the instances you mention I do not contest that some say its constitutional, same for most, if not all of it, having little to no judicial review or having it at least come before the court. However, that does not make it constitutional.
I pray to God for many successful lawsuits to curb the ever expansive nature of tyrant-like governors who are desperate to make this their new normal.
Just came across this as well....Figured you would like to have it.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
hysteria much? not wearing a mask is like pointing a gun at people? srsly?
You would first have to prove that masks reduce the spread (they do not)) that the virus is highly lethal (it is not) and that the person not wearing the mask has the disease. If you want to wear a mask go ahead. Stop trying to force others to play along with the charade