Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is based in case law (Marburry V Madison)
The Constitution doesn't specify who can determine a laws constitutionality. That should have been left to the people that wrote it? Right?and you call mine ironic,,,
their abilities come from the constitution, and as the constitution says ,, only an amendment can change the constitution,,,
you dont quarantine people that arent sick,, thats called prison,,,They don't.The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition. As long as it is not "permanent" right?lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact “laws” outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect “temporarily”?
as long as they dont violate the constitution,,
Freedom in not all that dumb. The same rights exercised by the civil rights protesters all year are the rights that should cover church gatherings.
I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest? Me either, because I think they have that right..absent violence.
Freedom=we decide. Use your freedom wisely--I don't gather, at all. I mask, more to reassure others--even though I've had the Covid..and am in little danger.
But there has to be an end.....soon.
I'm beginning to feel that the left is a bit too free with restrictions, in an emergency that has a clear end in sight. 6 months to herd immunity, most places.
in this case newsom for closing churchs,,,Who's violating the constitution?I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,I have no idea what your level of education might be, but I've long realized that educated doesn't have to equal smart.dont you mean "equally educated"???Wrong. I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.so you know I'm right and are running away,,,You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
Bye.
TYPICAL,,,
Have a nice day.
cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,
Because congress has the power to amend (write) the constitution, they should have the power to determine what it means, not the courts.What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the fuck is that using case law to determine constitutionality?
If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,,Because congress has the power to amend (write) the constitution, they should have the power to determine what it means, not the courts.What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the fuck is that using case law to determine constitutionality?
Right?
But the courts through case law usurped that power.
then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition. As long as it is not "permanent" right?lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact “laws” outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect “temporarily”?
The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.
Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
They don't.as long as they dont violate the constitution,,
Who's violating the constitution?I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,
Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
Huh?? Not sure how you got that out of what i wrote..but no.Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,
I think thats a form of fascism,,,
That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
They have every right to endanger themselves. They have no right to endanger their friends and families.I tend to agree..but it is their Right..to make that decision. You're not going to cure stupid..why are you trying?They're stupid. When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk. For NO VIABLE REASON. It's sheer stupidity.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.
Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,
I think thats a form of fascism,,,
Huh?? Not sure how you got that out of what i wrote..but no.Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,
I think thats a form of fascism,,,
My..solution, as you term it--is civility and natural courtesy. I think that if a church wants to worship and accepts the risks..let them do it. I think it's dumb..but it's their choice.
Just like the BLM protesters.
As for smoking..I was defending the right of smokers to smoke..and smoke around those who had no issue with breathing their smoke.
If you are suggesting that a smoker has a right to smoke wherever they wish...you are wrong...you have no right to have your habit somehow take precedence over their health and wishes. The law agrees, BTW.
Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
