To: chiller
I have a question for all of you.
If Ebola, with 70% mortality, spread as easily and rapidly as COVID, would these orders be legal and/or constitutional?
Why or why not?
14 posted on
12/08/2020 8:26:51 AM PST by
Jim Noble
(Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning)
To: Jim Noble
They wouldn’t need those orders. People would make their own decisions on how to protect themselves.
The fact is that this is just a highly contagious flu. It is generally manageable with a few exceptions. The overreach here is more deadly than the disease.
Time to ignore the orders and get back to living as free Americans.
This lockdown crap is just an experiment in Tyranny.
17 posted on
12/08/2020 8:34:14 AM PST by
P-Marlowe
(Freep mail me if you want to be on my Fingerstyle Acoustic Guitar Ping List )
To: Jim Noble
If Ebola, with 70% mortality, spread as easily and rapidly as COVID, would these orders be legal and/or constitutional?
Whether or not they would be legal, they would at least be rational. Lockdowns, etc. would be a rational response to an Ebola outbreak in the USA. What we are seeing now, given the relative harmlessness of COVID, is not a rational response, even if it is legal (which, after a certain time frame in most cases, it isn't).
29 posted on
12/08/2020 2:09:44 PM PST by
fr_freak
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson