OT Coronavirus: America in chaos, News and Updates. One million Americans dead and counting

That’s actually a reasonable response. I would love to tell someone why this doesn’t violate their rights. I’m gonna steal this. Thanks

 

Omg!

 

I don't understand your response. You say you "don't agree" with that example and then quote a Supreme Court justice affirming that precise example.

 

I'm not so much worried about the Churches, but I have wondered for a few weeks what the actual powers of the governors and federal governments actually are in regards to shutting down businesses and such. I'm not even close to a legal expert so I have no idea but something seems a bit odd that they can just decide on a whim what businesses are essential and who's being closed down. Who can gather and who can't. I mean look at every political press conference for the last month those have ALL (this is hyperbole) violated their own rules they're giving to us.
I think it will be intriguing if legislation happens and new laws come into play after this all said and done.

 

It's an odd and interesting thought on it, with where technology is, and how it all can be defined. I reached out to a couple of friends, 1 attorney, 1 judge, to get their input. Framers didnt know what we would have in the 21st century. In the way of guns, thinking of 2nd amendment, and tech, thinking of 1st. And I'm sure it's a challenge for judges to rule on antiquated laws, when SO much has changed in our lives.

 

that's interesting in several ways

one is would this ruling have gone the other way 20 years ago when there wasn't the technology to allow virtual assembly. Has the internet changed the Constitution?

 

No, I don't think it would necessarily have been disallowed (though, we can never know for certain what a court of humans would have decided) even 50 years ago. Again, none of those enumerated rights are completely unrestricted--when utilizing those rights would endanger others, the rights lose their force of law.

But even if it would have been disallowed by courts 20 years ago, that doesn't mean technology has "changed" the Constitution. It just means there are more avenues to worship, so closing down physical churches doesn't abridge the ability to worship.

 

Because the often used analogy isn’t about causing a health risk but panic to the public. I’m following the stay home orders, just making sure civil liberties aren’t being infringed

 

He wasn't saying that causing a panic is literally the only reason the first amendment can be abridged. He was providing an example of how harm to others isn't protected. Another example is that you can't threaten other people as "protected speech." If you threaten the President's life and you're arrested by the FBI, you can't claim your first amendment rights are being violated. It seems pretty obvious to me that during a pandemic that spreads by people gathering, rights to gather are no longer protected by the Constitution. I really don't see any court, especially the Supreme Court, disallowing the shelter-in-place orders or the bans on gatherings, including in religious institutions.

 

What do you think of the new relief bill the Dems are trying to pass?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ame...0kAH1bSjtDFq5e0n2Ggd5fpDJD21bCRszE8MTYjhnd430

 

I've been in favor of a major emergency relief bill to keep people afloat as long as stay-at-home orders are in effect and businesses are closed. Enough to pay necessities like food, energy bills and rent/mortgage. I also think a relief bill targeted to small businesses would be in order.

Whether this particular bill goes far enough, I don't have the data to determine, but I think it's the right idea. I don't mind it means-testing (relative to cost of living in the person's area), but it does need to be fast and without additions (from either party) that are unrelated to the actual relief.

 

Man that price tag would be astronomical. Probably 6 trillion.

 

My attorney just replied this when I asked if he thought our civil liberties are being violated.


no. No one’s civil liberties have been violated.

Privileges may have been suspended or changed due to a state of emergency, but not in a capricious way. You can still travel and go places. You can still buy things. You can still say what you want to say.

I do not think we are at that point yet.

 

I'm not politically savvy, but my interpretation is that Trump is doing quite the opposite of "ending the media's stranglehold on public opinion". I think all he's done is create more political divide then any president before him, and a bitter political divide at that. You can't bring people overlook media sources that pander to their political beliefs unless you bring a sense of unity. He's done the opposite.

Just look at how he much of an emphasis he puts on political orientation through his own Tweets. It's an "us vs. them" tactic that then gets played out in the media. When you have an "us vs. them" dynamic, both sides are more likely to seek out media that assuages their own beliefs, and validates themselves as being better than the other side, no matter how factual or non-factual these media sources are. The media panders to this to increase revenue, and the result isn't the media having less of a stranglehold on public opinion, both sides wanting to work together, and people using their own minds... It's the opposite.

 

A person voluntarily secluding to save their life is not a prisoner. Why don't you get off the fucking board and read Anne Frank's diary before you start whining about what a fucking victim you are?

 

I gave you the definition of being a prisoner. How about you stop spewing your vitriol at someone you disagree with? I read Anne Frank’s diary. I didn’t see her able to go to the store, have a walk in town, able to do whatever the fuck she wanted.

No, she was a prisoner, living in fear, the fear of dying, being captured. Don’t come at me with that weak shit.