So, some bozo on Facebook repeated the oft told bullshit on the right that emergency mandates during the pandemic were violations of their constitutional rights somehow. In the course of pointing out to him that he was full of shit I noted that epidemics were common during and before the founding era and so were government police actions in response and thus, had they thought such things were impositions on the rights they intended to protect in the constitution they would have said so somewhere. Which they didn't. He rejoindered with some off topic BS about the effects of lockdowns on economies and also challenged me to support my claim. In looking for a specific discussion of this matter, I found this. Feel free to share it with any boneheads you come across. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/the-constitution-and-the-coronavirus The We The People podcast followed this up a couple of weeks later with a discussion entitled "Civil Liberties and Covid 19" which I am listening to as I type. Notwithstanding that idiotic Dominionist decision regarding restricting church services last month, the whole sweep of judicial history supports the idea that local, state, and in some circumstances Federal government have quite broad powers to react in this situation as they have, and even moreso, without constitutional violation, despite the right wing fools (many of them holding public office such as our moron governor) trying to make Ayn Rand the supreme law of the land.
To be clear, I support emergency measures in the pandemic. However - I am troubled - and this is not just an American thing since it applies in most other western countries - as to the constitutional basis for restricting civil liberties so dramatically. Yes, there are all sorts of precedents but as one might claim in other circumstances, are these not merely judicial activism? Constitutional guarantees concerning the right to free assembly do not tend to list exceptions for public health. At the same time, making quarantine and the other powers explicit in a constitution will - as it always does - invite the unscrupulous to abuse them.
There in lies the problem. Some restrictions are necessary for the better good of the operation of the country and the lives and health of it's citizens. Trump neither cared to fight the virus, and he used those powers corruptly by only trying to enforce things that weakened democrat voter turnout. The real thing that should be changing is how we deal with those powers. Clearly letting one person run things so poorly is a huge problem. Also, the lack of educated and certified scientific input is lacking. The fact that charlotans and grifters posing as medical professionals were able to have contact with lawmakers and the president is disturbing. This is what happens when you have no standards for elected government work. We need a fucking test. There needs to be a fucking test people need to pass in order to run. We simply cannot have the great donaldo getting his snake oils voted in because he can round up enough village idiots. There is no doubt in my mind if donald had to take a fucking real test to run for president we would never have had to worry about him.
Yes, I am aware I kept saying fucking test and the donald still would have failed that one because he would be wondering when you pay the hooker to piss on him.
Freedom of speech in the first amendment doesn't textually include an incitement exception, a copyright exception (okay, this one is debatable), a slander exception, or even a fraud exception (and many others, but I'm sticking to the least controversial), and yet the world goes on with those exceptions legislated and enforced. Freedom of religion in the first amendment doesn't textually include a drugs exception, a human sacrifice exception, or a polygamy exception, and yet... Freedom of assembly in the first amendment doesn't textually include an exception for keeping protests off of military installations or other sensitive government land and facilities, and yet... It's entirely reasonable that deadly contagious disease should entail another limited exception to freedom of assembly.
It's interesting how different constitutional traditions create different perspectives on this. @RickDeckard said there were no constitutional exceptions for public health crises, and @Order2Chaos pointed out the 1st Amendment doesn't list established exceptions. On both those counts, the German Constitution -- younger, and notedly written mostly by American and British constitutional scholars -- differs on both counts, explicitly stating public health as one of the goals of government, and listing exceptions to free speech alongside the basic right. I think both is true -- some things aren't codified and develop historically, but at the same time, that development is noted and still becomes codified later.
You do realize you are talking about the american congress doing something with common sense and decency. I am pretty sure those are traits not present in 90 percent of congress and the entire white house. It is well beyond their capabilities. You would be more successful curing covid with bleach.
What Rick said. Freedom of assembly has been restricted and that is clearly unconstitutional. However, given the circumstances and the fact that people are too fuckin' stupid to behave appropriately in the face of a lethal pandemic . . .
Okay, I get that that's how it's legally justified. But wouldn't it be better to state the exceptions as @K. points out, rather than having everyone arguing about where the lines should be drawn on these things? Because allowing courts the latitude to decide that arguably leads in some cases to them infringing on those rights in an unacceptable manner. That's why this argument even exists.
We definitely need a Constitutional amendment of some kind that outlines the procedures for emergency situations. As the Constitution now sits, pretty much every measure that's been imposed in the name of COVID19 is actually unconstitutional, and therefore factually illegal. At a minimum the amendment needs to: - Define exactly which rights can be "curtailed" in the name of an immediate emergency and how far they can be curtailed. - Be declared by the President and approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress. - Auto-expire after 90 days, no exceptions. - Additional extensions beyond 90 days are allowed but they must be voted on and approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress each and every time an extension is desired.
In which case we would have gotten exactly nothing in the current situation, so the amendment would not do anything at all. And as soon as you start specifying exceptions, that can easily be interpreted as the only excepetions that are admissible, which means that if something truly unforeseen comes along, there is not way to deal with it. And on the other hand, it is too easy to decide that you can declare such a situation and get away with curtailing rights, like Donald Trump declaring imigration to be a "national emergency" and doing blatantly unconstitutional things. I much prefer common sense: "These are your rights, except in exceptional circumstances such as inciting people to crimes, war, major natural disasters, major health crises, invasions by aliens, and anything else so bad that anyone with half a brain can see that normal behavior is going to lead to very bad results." I have seen too many cases where trying to be too detailed in your descriptions just leads to more abuses. Can it be abused? Of course. But no matter how carefully you try to define it, that will always be the case.
I stopped reading right there. If 2/3 of Congress cannot be convinced that the emergency is an emergency serious enough to curtail Constitutional rights, then it's probably not really an emergency serious enough to curtail Constitutional rights. Do what you want with that tidbit.
and you don't think there is an emergency here right now with the pandemic and so many people out of work?
Hi, welcome to 2020, where we've been having the equivalent number of deaths as 9/11 on a daily basis.
And here is the Republican mindset. Don't even read anything you disagree with. Even if it's only a few lines long. And "constitutional rights" are more important than "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Too bad how many people ended up dead. "My rght to go outside freely is more important than their right to life." You disappoint me. I would have expected better from you.
As O2C pointed out, virtually none of the rights guaranteed to individuals in the Bill of Rights is absolute. Courts have upheld various limits on freedom of assembly as to time/place/manner as still constitutional. Your guess is as good as mine how the current SCOTUS would rule as to broad regulations designed to keep people from spreading coronavirus. I haven't been following the issue closely, but the one case that I'm familiar with was decided on a freedom of religion basis rather than freedom of assembly, and I don't think even it tried to imply that the government had no power whatsoever to restrict assembly in the face of the pandemic. If such an amendment were to be passed, there would be several issues potentially. Off the top of my head: 1. A president and a compliant Congress authorizing immediate emergencies left and right, putting themselves in a place where they could suspend the Constitution repeatedly and in whatever ways they want. Further, it would almost certainly be beyond meaningful judicial review because a) the courts are slow and b) it would be baked into the Constitution that they could do this. 2. A president and/or Congress refusing to authorize a national emergency even in the face of obvious needs. Given the current polarization in Congress and the current president, one can readily imagine that it would not be able to meet that threshhold. 3. The notion that local and state officials would have to wait on the federal government before potentially taking action raises federalism questions, both in terms of limiting what they can do in the face of a national emergency, what happens in a more local emergency, and potentially imposing a either limits or mandates on what Texas can do versus Massachussets or what have you.
You do realize that this is the same argument the left uses for everything else, right? You're too stupid so we have to impose X on you and government mandate it. My problem with these new restrictions is they aren't based in science like the left was screaming all summer long, "listen to the science!" In VA. you can serve alcohol until 10pm, but bars don't close until midnight. Some places you can't eat indoors so you go "outside" to a tented area. Isn't that indoors? According to the article linked below, only 1.3% of cases come from indoor dining, yet in NY, indoor dining is banned. I'd like to see more guys like that guy in NYC who called his bar an autonomous zone. I really hope more restaurant owners start fighting back and refuse these bullshit orders. I'm fine with listening to the scientists, but a lot of these new restrictions seem arbitrary and not based in science. https://reason.com/2020/12/14/just-...staurants-why-has-cuomo-banned-indoor-dining/
You wouldn't if you were around for when Ghost was celebrating Ohio forcing a ten year old to carry her stepfather/rapist's child to term. Great times, that was.
