What’s really scary is that neither he nor Tucker understand what he’s doing.
The Declaration of Independence says we have unalienable rights “among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and goes on to say that “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.”
The First Amendment covers freedom or religion and of assembly.
The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So maybe a State government does have power to temporarily restrict religious expression or assembly of other types when the rights to those things come in conflict with the right to life and possibly the pursuit of happiness during a lethal contagion.
Maybe.
When rights come into conflict we normally settle the issue through legislation and the courts and sometimes voting. I don’t know what laws and decisions have been made in regard to all this in any particular state but they may be inadequate, both to protect the people from lethal contagion and to protect the people from abuse of the state power.
If enough people sufficiently oppose how legislation and the courts settle any conflict of rights, the Tenth Amendment does say “or to the people” and the people have most of the guns.
Your argument is well stated. However, should not Marshal Law be declared to suspend Constitutional rights? Or must citizens seek redress at the Department of Justice or the Supreme Court? I thought the only leg he could stand on would be with due process, and there seems to be none.