COVID-19

[Hair Warrior]

1. They work for elected officials and are executing elected officials' intent. The Mayor (or whatever) doesn't have to do everything and can use his staff and supporting agencies to execute the vision. If what's happening isn't in line with what the locals want from their local government then they are free to boot them out next election and reshape the agencies. If what is happening there is supported by the locals and not by you (assuming you're not local) then it doesn't matter (unless you're a Tesla stockholder) because you don't get a say.
2. I doubt most constitutions have pandemic rules. But they have leeway for officials to execute policy as needed in light of available data. US Govt, State, and lots of local govts said "stay home." I'd imagine if challenged in court the courts would rule in favor of the officials as acting within their constitutional purview. You're welcome to your opinion on it, but as to whether or not it's ACTUALLY overreach or illegal then that will be up to the courts.
3. There's not a lot of precedent for a pandemic. Everyone is making it up as they go along.

As to your repeated hairdresser example, it sounds like a one off. How many other times has this happened? Or are you just focusing on one example that's an outlier and using that to derive your conclusion? Think about it.

Apologies, I didn’t intend my latter comments (everything below bullets) to be directed at you specifically. No animosity intended. I should have put “BT” and make a clean break.

BT

To anyone:

Even if federal/state/local executives want to give an order, it has to still be in line with constitutionality, or it’s invalid, right? Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly protections are very strong. Or so I thought.

If a local bar established a “Lake County Beer Drinkers Political Caucus” and then sold beer and handed out political stickers to everyone who showed up (and customers wore masks when not drinking and kept a social distance), with the stated political agenda of advocating freedom for beer drinkers, I’d wonder if it could be shut down without violating 1st Admt rights.

As for hairdressers, help me out here. What I mean to describe are workers who cannot work remotely, and are largely not considered “essential personnel” or critical industries in executive orders, but they could perform their jobs singly, and with their own tools, without re-opening a physical facility or working as part of a large team.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Apologies, I didn’t intend my latter comments (everything below bullets) to be directed at you specifically. No animosity intended. I should have put “BT” and make a clean break.

BT

To anyone:

Even if federal/state/local executives want to give an order, it has to still be in line with constitutionality, or it’s invalid, right? Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly protections are very strong. Or so I thought.

If a local bar established a “Lake County Beer Drinkers Political Caucus” and then sold beer and handed out political stickers to everyone who showed up (and customers wore masks when not drinking and kept a social distance), with the stated political agenda of advocating freedom for beer drinkers, I’d love to see a prosecutor try to shut it down.

As for hairdressers, help me out here. What I mean to describe are workers who cannot work remotely, and are largely not considered “essential personnel” or critical industries in executive orders, but they could perform their jobs singly, and with their own tools, without re-opening a physical facility or working as part of a large team.

You don’t have to think up hypotheticals. State and local governments have literally shut down churches.

 

[wink]

I think too often our good citizens forget about the constitutional case law developed over 200 years of challenges that have come before state and US Supreme Courts. It is the law of the land and must be considered along with your pocket Constitution. This paragraph, from a Texas Supreme Court ruling last week is worth pondering.

Any government that has made the grave decision to suspend the liberties of a free people during a health emergency should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate—both to its citizens and to the courts—that its chosen measures are absolutely necessary to combat a threat of overwhelming severity. The government should also be expected to demonstrate that less restrictive measures cannot adequately address the threat. Whether it is strict scrutiny or some other rigorous form of review, courts must identify and apply a legal standard by which to judge the constitutional validity of the government's anti-virus actions. When the present crisis began, perhaps not enough was known about the virus to second-guess the worst-case projections motivating the lockdowns. As more becomes known about the threat and about the less restrictive, more targeted ways to respond to it, continued burdens on constitutional liberties may not survive judicial scrutiny.

This is what is called "a shot across the bow" and will likely inform lower court decisions. Three things to note. First, not in in that paragraph or anywhere else in the opinion did they reject pandemic restrictions as being unconstitutional per se. Second, they rejected the business groups seeking relief from restrictions by sending them back to the District Court. So they didn't actually rule on the merits, but didn't think the issue required their immediate attention. Thirdly, this paragraph essentially says what may have been constitutional in March or April may not be in May or June. CONLAW allows the government to take certain extreme action if they have a compelling public interest. It stands to reason, what compels a certain action is changed by that action thus requiring continual reassessment of not the interests of the government, but how compelling.

 

[Griz882]

To be slightly contrarian, the ruling @wink mentions does indeed note that pandemic restrictions might be/or could be unconstitutional when they write...”courts must identify and apply a legal standard by which to judge the constitutional validity.” Luther v. Borden (1841), Ex parte Milligan (1866), Moyer v. Peabody (1909), Sterling v. Constantin (1932), and Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946) all allow for governments to restrict rights in an emergency but only as far as the courts will allow...unless...the government bans civil court actions as part of the emergency resulting in Martial Law!

So, short of martial law, as long as the courts are open any government is welcome, under the Constitution, to TRY restrictions but citizens are equally able to CHALLENGE those restrictions in court. A dissenting judge in Luther v. Borden said it best when governments try these things... “every citizen, instead of reposing under the shield of known and fixed laws as to his liberty, property, and life, exists with a rope round his neck, subject to be hung up by a military despot at the next lamp-post, under the sentence of some drum-head court-martial.”

 

[nittany03]

On the flipside, laws passed by a legislature are presumptively constitutional unless overruled by a court with jurisdiction. Doesn’t mean they actually are constitutional (see the Alien and Sedition Acts and so forth). But until a court strikes them down or issues a preliminary injunction, they’re law.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think too often our good citizens forget about the constitutional case law developed over 200 years of challenges that have come before state and US Supreme Courts. It is the law of the land and must be considered along with your pocket Constitution. This paragraph, from a Texas Supreme Court ruling last week is worth pondering.

Any government that has made the grave decision to suspend the liberties of a free people during a health emergency should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate—both to its citizens and to the courts—that its chosen measures are absolutely necessary to combat a threat of overwhelming severity. The government should also be expected to demonstrate that less restrictive measures cannot adequately address the threat. Whether it is strict scrutiny or some other rigorous form of review, courts must identify and apply a legal standard by which to judge the constitutional validity of the government's anti-virus actions. When the present crisis began, perhaps not enough was known about the virus to second-guess the worst-case projections motivating the lockdowns. As more becomes known about the threat and about the less restrictive, more targeted ways to respond to it, continued burdens on constitutional liberties may not survive judicial scrutiny.

This is what is called "a shot across the bow" and will likely inform lower court decisions. Three things to note. First, not in in that paragraph or anywhere else in the opinion did they reject pandemic restrictions as being unconstitutional per se. Second, they rejected the business groups seeking relief from restrictions by sending them back to the District Court. So they didn't actually rule on the merits, but didn't think the issue required their immediate attention. Thirdly, this paragraph essentially says what may have been constitutional in March or April may not be in May or June. CONLAW allows the government to take certain extreme action if they have a compelling public interest. It stands to reason, what compels a certain action is changed by that action thus requiring continual reassessment of not the interests of the government, but how compelling.

This is why I welcome people resisting/ignoring lockdown orders. The courts and government in general know that their authority only exists as long as people recognize it. Once enough people have had enough, their authority evaporates. They will ease restrictions accordingly to avoid that.

 

[Griz882]

On the flipside, laws passed by a legislature are presumptively constitutional unless overruled by a court with jurisdiction. Doesn’t mean they actually are constitutional (see the Alien and Sedition Acts and so forth). But until a court strikes them down or issues a preliminary injunction, they’re law.

Very true.

 

[wink]

On the flipside, laws passed by a legislature are presumptively constitutional unless overruled by a court with jurisdiction. Doesn’t mean they actually are constitutional (see the Alien and Sedition Acts and so forth). But until a court strikes them down or issues a preliminary injunction, they’re law.

Fun fact. When a law is struck down by the courts, even a Supreme Court, the law often stays on the books. Of course they are no longer enforced due to court nullification, but they are there for anyone smart enough to use Google, but not smart enough to research the case law.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1260275851804864512

Time to put an end to this insanity, people of LA

 

[Flash]

Saw this little gem in response to these docs by the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical society and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19.

I disagree. The urgent cares in Honolulu and Vegas are doing big business because doctor offices and hospitals are making patients do tele-med and the people want to see a doctor. My daughter says the same in her area (Westchester NY).

I’m also confident they know a lot more than you about COVID-19.

Big business is right. I may know less than those two jokers about medicine but their colleagues certainly disagree with them.

As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

I'm no medical expert but I would defer to them on this subject and the dangers we are facing as a nation. I think folks like Governor DeWine of Ohio, Governor Hogan of Maryland, Governor Northam of Virginia and Mayor Bowser of DC (the ones I'm most familiar with) are taking the correct steps in response to the virus and listening to the experts while gradually opening up their states and cities, while also making sure things don't get worse when they do take those steps.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I posted this graphic a page back, but it’s worth noting that NY and perhaps other states are skewing the numbers significantly

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259874636826849282

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259879104066793475

 

[jackjack]

There are a group of countries opening up. Called the first movers group. Among the members are Austria, Denmark, Norway, Greece, the Czech Republic, Israel, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...discussed-by-the-first-movers-covid-19-group/

It's a good idea to do enough testing, to make sure you are getting the people who are infected. With a tracing program and random testing. You do use more tests, but you find the infections.

 

[HAL Pilot]

 

[HAL Pilot]

Thermometer obviously obtained and supplied by the CDC, NIAID or the doctors at other government agencies who would rather continue ass fucking Americans painfully than allow society to open and the economy to recover. Obviously the more painful the solution, the better the solution. This approach seems to be fully supported by many with government jobs or government contracts protecting them from any economic pain.

Time to end this madness, open the country, allow people to go back to work and recover the economy.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

View attachment 25741

Thermometer obviously obtained and supplied by the CDC, NIAID or the doctors at other government agencies who would rather continue ass fucking Americans painfully than allow society to open and the economy to recover. Obviously the more painful the solution, the better the solution. This approach seems to be fully supported by many with government jobs or government contracts protecting them from any economic pain.

Time to end this madness, open the country, allow people to go back to work and recover the economy.

California just said their state universities will remain closed for the fall semester. Outrageous.