9 ms·
Perhaps its because of the violation of his company's employee's constitutional rights by local government.
by Fjolsvith 7y ago
Perhaps its because of the violation of his company's employee's constitutional rights by local government.
- colejohnson66 7y agoI’m genuinely curious. I hear this “constitutional rights” line from many conservatives. What rights are being violated?
- dr_dshiv 7y agoCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- happytoexplain 7y agoThere's an argument to be made that assembling right now in certain numbers is necessarily not peaceable, if it puts others in danger.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoExactly. If one draws the distinction that children aren't allowed in bars, alcohol stores or adult bookstores, why can't persons who are vulnerable not be allowed where people assembling might cause them vulnerable harm? This would allow people their freedom to assemble.
- happytoexplain 7y agoWhile I appreciate the attempt to find a compromise, this example is totally inappropriate for an infectious disease in a population.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoWell then, consider the bubble boy who was immunodeficient. All those vulnerable to the degree it is life threatening can get one of those and let everyone else get on with their lives.
- hef19898 7y agoYou still can worship, you can still say whatever you want. Musks tweet being proof for the latter.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoYou just can't assemble at a Tesla car factory. Edit: No pun intended.
- krapp 7y agoWhat law did Congress pass?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- IfIEverCatchYou 7y agoJust because Congress didn't make the gubernatorial orders doesn't excuse state governors from these constitutional rights violations.
- krapp 7y ago>Just because Congress didn't make the gubernatorial orders doesn't excuse state governors from these constitutional rights violations. They aren't constitutional rights violations by definition. Congress (and, explicitly, as written, only Congress as a body) is prevented from passing laws at a national level forcing states to violate their citizens' right to speech and assembly, but states have the right to do so of their own accord (as states by default claim all powers not given to the Federal government), and precedent has allowed it under exigent circumstances, such as 9/11 and prior pandemics. One could argue that the lockdown orders are unnecessary, but I think that would only be apparent in hindsight, and even then it would turn out to be a misuse of power that states legitimately have, but not abuse or an unlawful exercise of power, unless certain conspiracy theories about "globalist elites" turned out to be true (spoiler: they won't.)
- zaroth 7y ago> They aren't constitutional rights violations by definition. IANAL, but pretty sure that’s not how it works. Articles incorporated against the State prevent the State from passing laws that violate the Article. The Attorney General specifically has told the DOJ to be on the lookout for over-reach by the States in these lockdown orders.
- krapp 7y ago
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoIts the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" issue. Certainly epidemics qualify as a reasonable cause for asking people to stay home.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago> asking people to stay home. Unfortunately, most governors made it a crime to not stay home.