Posted on 05/09/2020 6:08:21 AM PDT by NobleFree
Absolutely right! If anyone wants to convince me otherwise they'll have to show the part of the Constitution that says other parts of the Constitution can be overridden by Comrade Mayors, Comrade Governors, or even the President.
That's not how the federal Constitution works; until the 14th Amendment the Constitution placed no restrictions on state governments (apart from the explicitly enumerated reserved federal powers, e.g., coining money).
“There is NOTHING in any constitution about shutting down the liberties and freedoms of the people.”
False. From the Illinois constitution:
SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS
(a) A County which has a chief executive officer elected
by the electors of the county and any municipality which has
a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units. Other
municipalities may elect by referendum to become home rule
units. Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit
may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to
its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the
power to regulate for the protection of the public health,
safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur
debt.
IMO, this thread, especially the comments of you and Andy, should be read by every sheriff in the nation that publicly resists or refuses to enforce a governor's restraints. One clear likely alternative is chaos.
The "community" selected its governor and the working assumption is that the governor generally reflects the will and mindset of the community.
There is a legal remedy in the event of an overreach and the sheriff may have standing to bring an action in a court, but until the matter is resolved the sheriff has a sworn duty to enforce the law.
My point is that the Supreme Court undermines the plain meaning of the Constitution as often as it defends it. Supreme Courts have erred in the past and slavish devotion to courts as the ultimate arbiter of our rights is dangerous in a free republic. I do tend in the direction that court decisions that explicitly or implicitly asserts that the state owns individuals are repugnant to the spirit of the American founding. Such decisions support a concept that could be reasonably described as “contingent slavery’.
"For instance allowing socially distanced outdoor recreation, except for a certain set of arbitrarily chosen activities that offend the sensitivities of the Michigan governor or the global warming crowd are not resting a rational basis. Fishing in the middle of a lake is not more prone to spreading a virus than jogging in the park."
Fair point. But I think the folks marching around with "LIBERATE <state name>" signs are making a broader claim.
Are you defending the unprecedented curtailment of constitutional liberties and the damage inflicted on the least privileged in the US as a legitimate exercise of state power? Based on what justification? A pandemic less severe than at least 5 since 1950 (with no stay at home orders or economic shutdowns). I categorically disagree with any court decision which attempts to justify “community” ownership of the lives of individuals.
OK then, lead me by the hand and explain why The Bill of Rights is not valid if a mayor or governor doesn’t want it to be.
Those who argue that there is nothing to mitigate against because this is nothing, and the my constitutional rights - you can't do anything. And as a subgroup of the first - the idiotic unfounded we already have herd immunity crowd
Want to argue that an idiotic set of measures is unreasonable? Go for it. I am all in and right behind you.
There is nothing in there about shutting down commerce or completely restricting the rights of the people. No dictator ship clause in there at all.
Are you defending the unprecedented curtailment of constitutional liberties and the damage inflicted on the least privileged in the US as a legitimate exercise of state power?
No. Are you propping up straw men to do battle with because you have nothing with which to rebut what I have said?
The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government, not the states - "Congress shall make no law" etc.
Never happened - I live in Illinois and engaged in commerce just this morning.
I think that your position does not need to be rebutted. You support Supreme Court decisions that assert that the “community” owns the lives of individuals. I do not support decisions of that sort, because the idea of communities owning individuals is incompatible with our founding values. I suspect that we have irreconcilable opinions which will not be swayed by argument. I have been quite clear in my position. You disagree. I accept that. I hope you are never placed in a situation where the “community” decides that it owns your life.
State Constitutions cannot veto the Bill of Rights.
What? I didn’t get the memo!
Oh barf.
This panic over a virus has certainly allowed us to see individual elected politicians overstepping our constitutional bounds.
Example #1: I ORDER YOU NOT TO GO FISHING BECAUSE YOU MIGHT CATCH A VIRUS INSTEAD OF A FISH!!!
Example #2: YOU CAN’T WORSHIP IN A CHURCH BECAUSE YOU SIT TOO CLOSE TOGETHER! HOWEVER, YOU CAN MINGLE ASSHOLE-TO-BELLY-BUTTON AT WALMART TO BUY A FISHING POLE!!!
This is a marvelous opportunity to rewrite emergency declarations on the state level so this crap never happens again. It will be up to patriots to get involved in local and state politics to rewrite the rules. Get to work.
In your opinion at what mortality rate and hospitalization rate should such measures as are currently implemented be used?
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.