Why Is There No Legislation Introduced To Prevent Lockdowns or Shutdowns in the Future?

[basquebromance]

there was no lockdown the last time a virus hit.

from the NYPost:

"“I wish they had social distancing at Woodstock,” said 68-year-old Patti Mulhearn Lydon, who attended the festival amidst a a global pandemic in which over one million people died "

 

[IM2]

These arguments are retarded.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'll ask you again, what are the credentials that allow you this special insight of clarity that none but you can see? Supernatural reading comprehension? An IQ of 300? The voice of God? Enlighten me.

I'm literate, and of at least-average intelligence. I can read the Constitution for myself, and understand what it clearly says.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unless of course, they apply due process, in which case states CAN abridge freedom. See you can not claim "no exception" while citing the fact that rules for exceptions are clearly stated.

And Due Process is discussed enough in the Constitution,to understand enough about what it entails to clearly see that it is absent in cases where corrupt judges, legislators, and other criminals infesting our government violate the peoples rights with impunity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's even worse Bobby here simply claims that he is so superior in his understanding of the constitution that the fact that he can't is irrelevant.

For purposes of this discussion, I do not claim anything much abive an average level of intelligence or literacy. There is no reason why anyone else of average intelligence and literacy cannot understand the Constitution as well as I do, if he will only make the effort to study it. Sadly, too many people will not make this effort, and stupidly trust government to tell them what it means without verifying for themselves. Government is being allowed to treat the Constitution, in much the same way that corrupt churches treated the Bible during the Dark Ages, forbidding the common people to read it or to try to understand it, forcing the people to trust the priests as the only ones qualified to read and understand scripture, just as you foolishly trust judges and other corrupt public servants to be the only ones qualified to read and understand the Constitution.

The great men who wrote the Constitution, with divine guidance from God, did not write it for those who delusionally imagined themselves to be our elite ruling class. They wrote it for us, the common people, to read, to understand, and to hold our public servants to it.

 

[forkup]

I'll ask you again, what are the credentials that allow you this special insight of clarity that none but you can see? Supernatural reading comprehension? An IQ of 300? The voice of God? Enlighten me.

I'm literate, and of at least-average intelligence. I can read the Constitution for myself, and understand what it clearly says.

Can you now? And all those judges, regardless of their party affiliation can't? This, in the end, is your problem. You keep on stating that your opinion is fact. If it's clear there would be no room for discussion, clearly, there is, and that discussion amongst those that are both qualified and appointed by the constitution to rule on these matters, NOT some dudes on the internet keep on drawing the same conclusion. A conclusion that is contrary to yours.

It is the height of arrogance to not just claim you know better than all of them but that it takes only average intelligence to be able to categorically state they are all wrong.

 

[forkup]

Unless of course, they apply due process, in which case states CAN abridge freedom. See you can not claim "no exception" while citing the fact that rules for exceptions are clearly stated.

And Due Process is discussed enough in the Constitution,to understand enough about what it entails to clearly see that it is absent in cases where corrupt judges, legislators, and other criminals infesting our government violate the peoples rights with impunity.

I have a question for you. In the course of your life have you ever entertained the possibility that you could be wrong about something? Because you keep on stating opinions and present them as facts. Do you understand the fundamental difference between the 2?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is the height of arrogance to not just claim you know better than all of them but that it takes only average intelligence to be able to categorically state they are all wrong.

I will admit that I am, at times, a very arrogant person. But I doubt if I have ever achieved the level of arrogance routinely demonstrated by corrupt judges, who presume to tell us that the Constitution means something that is very much contrary to what I can read, with my own eyes. Certainly, when I can read that the Constitution asserts certain rights, forbids government from violating these rights, and states no circumstances under which government is allowed to violate these rights, or to violate the Constitution in general, how arrogant is a judge to presume to tell me that government is allowed to do what the Constitution clearly says it is not?

And how ignorant and gullible must someone like you be, to believe what a judge says, when the Constitution is easily available for you to read and study, so that you can see for yourself what it says, and how it is irreconcilable with what a judge says?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have a question for you. In the course of your life have you ever entertained the possibility that you could be wrong about something? Because you keep on stating opinions and present them as facts. Do you understand the fundamental difference between the 2?

I have certainly been wrong at times and have admitted so.

I am not wrong about this.

 

[forkup]

It is the height of arrogance to not just claim you know better than all of them but that it takes only average intelligence to be able to categorically state they are all wrong.

I will admit that I am, at times, a very arrogant person. But I doubt if I have ever achieved the level of arrogance routinely demonstrated by corrupt judges, who presume to tell us that the Constitution means something that is very much contrary to what I can read, with my own eyes. Certainly, when I can read that the Constitution asserts certain rights, forbids government from violating these rights, and states no circumstances under which government is allowed to violate these rights, or to violate the Constitution in general, how arrogant is a judge to presume to tell me that government is allowed to do what the Constitution clearly says it is not?

And how ignorant and gullible must someone like you be, to believe what a judge says, when the Constitution is easily available for you to read and study, so that you can see for yourself what it says, and how it is irreconcilable with what a judge says?

They don't presume to tell us. It's their JOB to tell us. And again you keep on stating opinions and present them as facts. I have read the relevant pieces of the constitution and for good measure you posted them. And I, not a judge but I immediately stated my problem with it namely this.

Certainly, when I can read that the Constitution asserts certain rights, forbids government from violating these rights, and states no circumstances under which government is allowed to violate these rights

When the constitution states clearly that the government can abridge those rights. As long as they allow due process of law. For instance, the government routinely abridges a person's right to freedom by incarceration.

Again as I stated before you keep on saying "it's clear" but it simply isn't, not here because I obviously don't agree and I'm pretty decent at reading comprehension. And certainly not in a court of law. As shown by the dozens of lawsuits dealing with just this epidemic.

 

[forkup]

I have a question for you. In the course of your life have you ever entertained the possibility that you could be wrong about something? Because you keep on stating opinions and present them as facts. Do you understand the fundamental difference between the 2?

I have certainly been wrong at times and have admitted so.

I am not wrong about this.

That's the thing with being wrong nobody ever thinks they are unless it's pointed out to them and often not even then.

 

[Snouter]

...government routinely abridges a person's right to freedom by incarceration.

forkup, you are arguing an ad hominem. The Constitution insists on citizens having fair, speedy trials, no excessive bail, trial by jury, etc. and if a citizen is found guilty must face consequence as long as it is not cruel or unusual punishment, etc. To set every guilty individual free no matter what the crime they are guilty of is apparently democrat policy today though. And typically the criminals do what they do after the democrat scum let them loose.

 

[Snouter]

And how ignorant and gullible must someone like you be, to believe what a judge says, when the Constitution is easily available for you to read and study, so that you can see for yourself what it says, and how it is irreconcilable with what a judge says?

Good point. And the irony is that judges at all levels of courts have a responsibility and oath to protect the US Constitution first and foremost. Of course for decades now, democrat scum judges presided over "activist courts" which attempt to legislate which is the job of state and federal legislators, not judges.

 

[Snouter]

As we all know, the Declaration of Independence signed July 4, 1776 stated...

..."Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"...

When examining the list of violations on freedom and liberty the King of Great Britain inflicted on the colonies, there are quite a number of similarities. Very troubling.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

 

[forkup]

...government routinely abridges a person's right to freedom by incarceration.

forkup, you are arguing an ad hominem. The Constitution insists on citizens having fair, speedy trials, no excessive bail, trial by jury, etc. and if a citizen is found guilty must face consequence as long as it is not cruel or unusual punishment, etc. To set every guilty individual free no matter what the crime they are guilty of is apparently democrat policy today though. And typically the criminals do what they do after the democrat scum let them loose.

Before you jump in here it would probably be helpful if you read the entire conversation. See it is Bob who claims there is no exception provided in the constitution for people being denied there freedom and I gave the example of people being jailed to show how wrong that position is. Also, how is that argument Ad hominem?

 

[forkup]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

 

[forkup]

And how ignorant and gullible must someone like you be, to believe what a judge says, when the Constitution is easily available for you to read and study, so that you can see for yourself what it says, and how it is irreconcilable with what a judge says?

Good point. And the irony is that judges at all levels of courts have a responsibility and oath to protect the US Constitution first and foremost. Of course for decades now, democrat scum judges presided over "activist courts" which attempt to legislate which is the job of state and federal legislators, not judges.

And yet although I asked without a limit in time or party affiliation to show me a judge who supports your position you have not done so. Why is that if you claim it's Democrats who aren't following the constitution?

 

[justinacolmena]

But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

They need to be thoroughly punished out of their excessive political powers, especially at the local level: punished into submission to the Constitution and the natural rights of mankind. They're public servants. If they're not doing their jobs to our satisfaction, then we the people need to be able to fire them and force them out of public office and trust.

 

[Snouter]

Before you jump in here it would probably be helpful if you read the entire conversation. See it is Bob who claims there is no exception provided in the constitution for people being denied there freedom and I gave the example of people being jailed to show how wrong that position is. Also, how is that argument Ad hominem?

forkup, the US Constitution does not deny freedom for any US citizen. Your "example" of a US citizen lawfully convicted of a crime being denied freedom is an ad hominem. Take a class in logical fallacies or whatever. Your inability to grasp common sense is not my problem.