Nope. There is NOTHING in any constitution about shutting down the liberties and freedoms of the people.
Posted on 05/09/2020 6:08:21 AM PDT by NobleFree
Absolutely untrue, our constitutional rights have been trampled at every level.
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.
Then there is the issue of balancing public health against the right to contract out one's labor to earn a living to feed one's family. Clearly this isn't bubonic plague where we are all going to die.
WTF is the Heritage Foundation thinking. Defense of transparent tyranny is not fidelity to the Constitution. Citing Supreme Court decisions as the true meaning of the Constitution seems to neglect decisions like Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade, and Obergefell v Hodges which show that the Supreme Court often takes the side of tyrants and destroyers.
I’m glad that I had not mailed them my 2020 contribution yet.
Mostly untrue...there are no absolutes in life. Strike that. I guess if you live entirely off the grid, then there are absolutes.
The 10th Amendment needs to be updated for life in the 21st Century and beyond.
So explain how some businesses can open but others cannot.
Also explain that if the determining factor is a business ability to maintain 'Social Distancing' how are airlines allowed to fly?
This is one just example of States and local governments violating Constitution.
Don't forget the 1st Amendment and what States have done to Church Services!
Governor Inslee (WA) is using emergency powers to reward his political friends and punish his foes.
According to inside sources.
That’s what I like about Freepers. You made me look up Obergefell.
** Significantly, the Supreme Court has held that states can invoke such authority—within reason—to respond to a health crisis. **
“Within-reason”? I think we’ve gotten well passed that point when governors are shutting down gun & ammunition sales, emptying prisons, suspending arrests for certain crimes and arbitrarily declaring which business are and are not essential thus crashing the national economy.
The Pennsylvania legislature has repeatedly failed to override Gov. Wolf’s veto’s. To be fair he has moved to ease a few specific restrictions in order to maintain his vetos. But he still fits the textbook definition of a tyrant.
You are free to challenge those edicts by the MI governor at any time.
Once the courts reopen.
Which is, of course, the most basic issue. There is little, if any, judicial oversight and executives can do pretty much as they choose until they relinquish these powers or have them removed by the legislature.
It’s just they way it is.
I think that is what I just argued, that a lot of what we see is not standing on a rational basis.
I believe in suspending our Constitutional rights, one must consider the severity of the circumstances. In all prior instances, the country was at war or there was some localized natural disaster. In the case of war, the nation’s existence was at risk. In the case of natural disaster, the rules were for a very short period of time and only impacted the local area. The government’s current suspension of our rights is a total over reaction to this virus. It is estimated that 99.97 percent of people will NOT die from the virus, yet 100% will lose their rights, 20-30 percent will become unemployed, and our economy will be destroyed.
In addition, one must consider which rights have been impacted. In nearly all prior cases, the government ordered people to take action, such as change production. I am not aware of any action where our rights to assemble and exercise religion were suspended. Nor, am I aware where our right to equal protection was totally ignored. Lastly, as previously mentioned, the governors’ orders are arbitrary, which make them unconstitutional.
In the current situation the government’s actions to suspend our rights far exceed the virus’s risk to the nation. Their actions are unconstitutional.
No general, even during a war, ever had complete control over the lives of 40,000,000 people as Gavin (Pelosi) Newsom has in California.
No politician, even during a crisis, ever had complete control over the lives, families and businesses of 20,000,000 people as does Mario Cuomo in New York.
No Leftist, even during the recent upheaval to "fundamentally change the United States of America", ever had the power to suspend the rights protected by the Constitution of 10,000,000 people as does Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan.
These and other primarily Democrat/Leftist politicians (governors) have not only suspended the U.S. Constitution in their states, they have effectively cancelled the formerly "unalienable right" of Liberty, with no intention to restore that God-given right any time soon. And it is clear that this "unalienable right" wiil be restored only when the governor -- nothing more than an elected politician -- says it will be restored.
And all the while -- over the past six weeks when the forced isolation began -- federal officials including the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and even the President of the United States, officials who have sworn their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America", have stood mute. These "defenders of the Constitution" (their primary duty above all else) have allowed these governors -- primarily the Democrat/Left governors -- to turn our Constitution into nothing more than a collection of high-sounding words on pieces of aging parchment.
After the disaster at Appomattox the tenth was effectively repealed.
Of course it’s Andrew Cuomo of New York, not Mario Cuomo. Please forgive my error.
Not as single link between these “Acts” and the constitution in the article.
Just a few years later, in 1918, in Arver v. United States (better known as the Selective Draft Law Cases), Chief Justice Edward White, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, upheld the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act, which imposed compulsory military service for adult males to address an “existing emergency”—the shortage of military personnel needed to fight the “war then and now flagrant.”
The court rejected the challenge to the law, even though conscription clearly had a dramatic effect on the liberty of those who were marched off to war against their will, many of whom ultimately died on the field of battle from wounds they suffered or from diseases to which they were subjected.
Citing Supreme Court decisions as the true meaning of the Constitution seems to neglect [...] that the Supreme Court often takes the side of tyrants and destroyers.
So do you hold that government has no authority to enact restraint to protect against an epidemic of disease - nor to call a military draft? If that's not your point, what is?
I disagree:
'He is also correct that a few local officials may be infringing on our constitutional rights through some of the measures they have announced. [...] when governors, using the police power under their respective state constitutions, restrict large public gatherings, enact quarantines, and take other prophylactic measures to suppress the transmission of the virus, they are not, under the circumstances, acting to satisfy their “totalitarian impulses,” but rather to defeat a public health crisis that is, unfortunately, very real.'
Nope. There is NOTHING in any constitution about shutting down the liberties and freedoms of the people.
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.