It Has Started: Activist Court Rewrites Law

[airplanemechanic]

Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.

That's not what it says.

Note well that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people those powers not explicitly designated to the federal government, makes mention of powers prohibited to the states. Especially under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, such prohibited powers would include any that violate any of the rights asserted in the Bill of Rights.

You're way the fuck over that idiots head.

His understanding of the constitution stops at "orange man bad."

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.

Freedom of assembly, as explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment.

That prohibits these bullshit “temporary health orders” that violate the right to assemble.

That's aside from the fact that these bullshit “temporary health orders” are being enacted by illegal dictates from Governors and mayors, and not via any legitimate legislative process.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue.

Show us where it isn't? I thought that was the standard, now. And no, im not blaming Trump for that. It was that way before him.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue.

Show us where it isn't? I thought that was the standard, now. And no, im not blaming Trump for that. It was that way before him.

Show me where it is. Things are not constitutional by default, they are unconstitutional by default. The constitution is all encompassing. The gov't can't do anything the constitution doesn't allow it to do.

Show me where laws can be passed without a legislative process. There is no way that a law passed without a legislature can be considered constitutional when it violates one of the rights in the bill of rights. No idiot would stand here and say that's legal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.

Correct, provided they don't impede the rights laid out in the US Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.

Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?

Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.

You are not following this too well. Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:

Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?

Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not?

Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?

 

[airplanemechanic]

And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.

Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?

Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.

You are not following this too well. Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:

Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?

Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not?

Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?

But it's not even that. The STATES aren't passing these covid laws, the GOVERNORS and MAYORS are making them all on their own, bypassing our legislative process of making laws.

So if they weren't illegal on their face because of how they were created, they're illegal because they infringe on rights given by the constitution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Show me where laws can be passed without a legislative process. There is no way that a law passed without a legislature can be considered constitutional when it violates one of the rights in the bill of rights. No idiot would stand here and say that's legal.

Except that we have idiots right here in this very thread, saying exactly that which you are saying no idiot would say.

 

[Crepitus]

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 constituti

Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?

First Amendment to our Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:

​

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

​

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.​

​

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

​

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.​

​

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

And on top of all that, nearly all of these “temporary public health orders” are not actual, valid laws anyway. There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate. Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.

These “temporary public health orders” have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.

And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.

Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.

Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.

Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.

Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.

Um, "everything else" doesn't mean making laws and bypassing congress.

So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue. Things are by default unconstitutional unless the constitution allows them.

Where have they infringed on your Constitutional rights? These common sense orders are perfectly Constitutional. No one is infringing on your right to practice the religion of your choice, even if you have to do not in smaller groups for a while. Wearing a mask? Where does it say the states can make laws about wearing pants in public? Yet every state has laws about that.

Get real. A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.

 

[Crepitus]

Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.

That's not what it says.

Note well that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people those powers not explicitly designated to the federal government, makes mention of powers prohibited to the states. Especially under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, such prohibited powers would include any that violate any of the rights asserted in the Bill of Rights.

You're way the fuck over that idiots head.

His understanding of the constitution stops at "orange man bad."

Don't be stupider than you have to be, Son.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.

Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?

Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.

You are not following this too well. Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:

Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?

Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not?

Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?

But it's not even that. The STATES aren't passing these covid laws, the GOVERNORS and MAYORS are making them all on their own, bypassing our legislative process of making laws.

So if they weren't illegal on their face because of how they were created, they're illegal because they infringe on rights given by the constitution.

I considered that. But what I'm trying to do is point out to Crepitus how it's unconstitutional on the federal level. The Constitution was not written for what government can do to us, it was written to outline what government can't do to us.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 constituti

Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?

First Amendment to our Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:

​

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

​

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.​

​

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

​

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.​

​

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

And on top of all that, nearly all of these “temporary public health orders” are not actual, valid laws anyway. There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate. Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.

These “temporary public health orders” have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.

And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.

Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.

Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.

Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.

Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.

Um, "everything else" doesn't mean making laws and bypassing congress.

So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue. Things are by default unconstitutional unless the constitution allows them.

Where have they infringed on your Constitutional rights? These common sense orders are perfectly Constitutional. No one is infringing on your right to practice the religion of your choice, even if you have to do not in smaller groups for a while. Wearing a mask? Where does it say the states can make laws about wearing pants in public? Yet every state has laws about that.

Get real. A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.

The right to peaceably assemble

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.

Oh, please. You assclowns have been rewriting the Constitution from the bench for generations. And nobody is expanding the court, so shut up. Considering the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, it would appear to me they are actually upholding the Constitution, whereas your viewpoint would be rewriting of it.

 

[Lysistrata]

People who choose to attend these super-spreader events with not even a mask or public distancing are dirty people who disrespect their communities and their nation. It doesn't matter that the gathering is "religious" or not.

Oh stuff it. You people are abject cowards. Don't go out, just hide. The rest of us aren't afraid.

You people are dirty disease spreaders who don't care about anyone else. You are too stupid to understand epidemiology and too self-centered to care about your fellow human beings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Get real. A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.

It takes a Crepitus-level of stupidity to believe that any of this is being done to save lives. From the beginning, this has been nothing more than an excuse for corrupt politicians to enrich and empower themselves, to our detriment.

And yes, it absolutely is unconstitutional, on several fronts, all of which have been clearly explained to you.

 

[Lysistrata]

Get real. A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.

It takes a Crepitus-level of stupidity to believe that any of this is being done to save lives. From the beginning, this has been nothing more than an excuse for corrupt politicians to enrich and empower themselves, to our detriment.

And yes, it absolutely is unconstitutional, on several fronts, all of which have been clearly explained to you.

WWJD?

 

[Lysistrata]

I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.

It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever really been “pro-life”?

When they oppose the killing of babies.

I notice all the anti religion bigots all assume that being in church automatically means a total lack of
covid virus protocol.

Why is that?

Who kills babies? What part of the human gestational process are you talking about?

 

[j-mac]

Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”

Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People

Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.

Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments. They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.

Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?

The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.

Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?

And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.

Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells

No, that your drug habit.

Nope, don't do drugs, I'm a truck driver....Nice try though...It highlights that in many cases how you talk out of your ass....

 

[Crepitus]

Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”

Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People

Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.

Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments. They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.

Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?

The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.

Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?

And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.

Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells

No, that your drug habit.

Nope, don't do drugs, I'm a truck driver....Nice try though...It highlights that in many cases how you talk out of your ass....

Well something has killed an awful lot of your braincells, as you just admitted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.

Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.

Tell that to Native Americans, African, and Chinese slaves. What a dumbass statement. And right in tune with the entitled asshole mindset. And lets not forget the rights of women. Which according to the good book are subserviants, to the entitled asshole mindset.

Every state has the duty to protect its citizens above everything else. Rights don't mean anything when you're dead. Or enslaved.

And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected? Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?

So they don't have the same "Freedoms". Is that what you're insinuating?

So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?

What other religious atrocities from the old world should we reinstate to accomodate these worhippers "rights"?

Meanwhile in that state businesses were allowed to open and have gatherings of 25 percent capacity. Thats all the supreme court did is say it was blatantly wrong to tell churches they could not open to the same standard.