(COVID/ETC CONTENT HERE) China Locks Down 11 Million in Wuhan,

[Arik]

Ukraine is sending an AN224 full of salo.

About time. Running out over here. In fact the gov closed liquor stores so I'm running out of that too!

[jsbhike]

Alpha-17 laid it out very nicely. Permitting a simple presidential declaration of emergency does not, according to what is written in our Constitution, trump the Constitution. Allowing an emergency declaration is certainly expedient and efficient, but incurs the risk of tramping on our civil liberties. Modern lawyers and judges may drum up arguments in an attempt to justify such actions, but again, if we have true natural rights, they can't be taken away by fiat.

With respect to the wisdom of megachurches holding services, that's actually not really in question. Of course they shouldn't, that's a really bad decision, and would increase virus spread risk. Yes, people can worship in other ways should they choose. The fundamental legal question is should it be suddenly illegal for them to meet? If you think it should be illegal for them to meet, then why are so many other non-church activities still occurring? Like primary elections? Someone clearly made a decision and said that voting rights in this instance are more important than stopping viral spread. And if you say, sure, it's because it's an "emergency," then who draws the line of what an emergency is? Could a president decide that if he can't get Congress on board, he'll just declare the situation an emergency and just build the wall? Could we have an intelligence emergency and decide that we will wire tap every single email and phone call in CONUS? Perhaps we actually have a gun violence emergency, and "I've got a pen and phone" could take away what we thought were rights protected by the 2nd?

These are just a few very recent examples of exactly what we are talking about, highlighting the challenge of dangerous liberty which often is in conflict with government authority, and is sometimes in conflict with population safety. Today these challenges for our nation are not just academic, but are very real as we struggle with fighting this wretched virus.

You nailed it.

[1168]

Alpha-17 laid it out very nicely. Permitting a simple presidential declaration of emergency does not, according to what is written in our Constitution, trump the Constitution. Allowing an emergency declaration is certainly expedient and efficient, but incurs the risk of tramping on our civil liberties. Modern lawyers and judges may drum up arguments in an attempt to justify such actions, but again, if we have true natural rights, they can't be taken away by fiat.

With respect to the wisdom of megachurches holding services, that's actually not really in question. Of course they shouldn't, that's a really bad decision, and would increase virus spread risk. Yes, people can worship in other ways should they choose. The fundamental legal question is should it be suddenly illegal for them to meet? If you think it should be illegal for them to meet, then why are so many other non-church activities still occurring? Like primary elections? Someone clearly made a decision and said that voting rights in this instance are more important than stopping viral spread. And if you say, sure, it's because it's an "emergency," then who draws the line of what an emergency is? Could a president decide that if he can't get Congress on board, he'll just declare the situation an emergency and just build the wall? Could we have an intelligence emergency and decide that we will wire tap every single email and phone call in CONUS? Perhaps we actually have a gun violence emergency, and "I've got a pen and phone" could take away what we thought were rights protected by the 2nd?

These are just a few very recent examples of exactly what we are talking about, highlighting the challenge of dangerous liberty which often is in conflict with government authority, and is sometimes in conflict with population safety. Today these challenges for our nation are not just academic, but are very real as we struggle with fighting this wretched virus.

I agree that lines are being crossed.

About time. Running out over here. In fact the gov closed liquor stores so I'm running out of that too!

Benzos are about to get more popular over here.

[Arik]

I agree that lines are being crossed.



Benzos are about to get more popular over here.

Anxiety meds? Sorry I'm very drug ignorant.

[kerplode]

Anxiety meds? Sorry I'm very drug ignorant.

Yup. Xanax seems to be the GenZ drug of choice.

[Honu]

Your analogies are over the top and unrealistic. The 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee the right for a church to remain open during times of national emergency. It guarantees the right of the INDIVIDUAL to practice the religion of his choosing free from government persecution. You can worship at home during this crisis. My church is putting out services online.

Just what do you think a quarantine should be? You clearly have not an bit of medical knowledge so you don’t address the massive public danger from COVID19 in your argument. To allow mass gathering is to continue to spread the disease! The constitution allows for common sense. You should too.

Heavyweight

HUH allows for common sense ? AHHHHH OK I understand where are you are coming from like common sense gun laws !

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Church is not a building it is the people !!!

[WillBrink]

HUH allows for common sense ? AHHHHH OK I understand where are you are coming from like common sense gun laws !

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Church is not a building it is the people !!!

I'd say the authors of the Const. attempted to leave some room for the application of common sense, but when so many can't even figure out what "shall not infringe" means, we know that's not gonna happen as much as we'd like.

I think not having services in a mega church during a planet wide viral outbreak is about a common sense as it gets, but obviously the leaders of that church don't agree, which then forces the hands of the government to act.

Do they have the authority to act? I can see both sides of it, and it's one of those topics that understandably raises some important Qs of government overreach, etc. I get that.

My own interpretation is that it's far closer to the "you can't yell fire in a movie theater" example of the limits of the 1A then it is an example of the government preventing any individual per se of practicing their religion "free exercise thereof."

I still agree that the cure should not be worse then the disease and we must be very careful not to hand over our Rights rit large "for our own good" only to wake up and realize they're all gone.

Rights lost are never given back willingly...

[chuckman]

<---not a constitutional scholar or lawyer. My first degree is political science (ECU, 91), but I took the 3 hours of intro to con law and got the hell out of Dodge.

I think the justification may be found (as interpreted) in Art 1, Section 8, subsec 1 and 18.

What do I think? I think what the government is doing is well-intentioned, but misguided, and maybe unconstitutional. But I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer. I am happy to stay in my lane. Like Will, et al., I can see both sides.

[Life's a Hillary]

It’s a shame god didn’t bless these teachers of his word with a brain so we wouldn’t have to be debating this subject in the first place. Why is it so hard for people to just stay at home? We would be done with this mess soon if people used common sense.

[1168]

Anxiety meds? Sorry I'm very drug ignorant.

It was a joke about alcohol withdrawal.