36 ms·

I know its probably crazy to ask, but tell me where in the US Constitution does the federal government have the power to force me into a hotel at my expense I

by syshum 6y ago

I know its probably crazy to ask, but tell me where in the US Constitution does the federal government have the power to force me into a hotel at my expense I know in "times of emergency" people seem to think the constitution is suspended and the government as "unlimited power" but last I checked Emperor Palatine was a fictional character, and saying "Singapore does" well Singapore is an Authoritarian nightmare IMO, one i do not really want to replicate here in the US. I pass taking public policy lessons from Singapore

jedberg 6y ago
It's part of protecting the borders. The Supreme Court has already determined that anything within 100 miles of the border is the "border zone" and gives the government broad authority to enforce border protection within that zone. Also, it could reasonably argued that it is part of their "protect life" job.
- syshum 6y ago
  That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions, the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) allowed Federal Law enforcement to stop people with in the border zones to establish if they crossed the border illegally, once Citizenship is established then normal protections snap back into place Even at border crossing the government has been allowed to seize Devices and other things but they generally can not prevent a US Citizen from entering, they can stop you from bringing your stuff, but they cant stop you (outside the limited questioning detainment certainly not 14 days) unless they have an arrest warrant or some other cause of action to arrest you
  - jedberg 6y ago
    I agree that they were wrong. But that is how things stand now. And they do have a cause to detain you -- you might be carrying a deadly virus. Until you can prove otherwise, they can detain you.
    - syshum 6y ago
      That is flipping due process on its head, the state has the duty to prove I am a danger to others, I have not duty to prove I am not Having a position that I have to prove my innocence is completely devoid of any due process and is unconstitutional
      - solarengineer 6y ago
        Given that Virus and Biology have no obligation to be compatible with various national and international laws, it is upon human society and governments to work around the virus. Thus, for e.g., people in South East and Far East Asia learned from the earlier pandemics and voluntarily wear face masks to protect themselves and those around them even when one has "just a cold or a cough". People also agreed to socially and physically distance when asked. The messages from scientists and doctors have been enough proof of the dangers that the virus poses.
        syshum 6y ago
        That is fine, my problem is recently we have just be ignoring the constitution when it is deemed to be a problem The fact remains the federal government has no constitutional authority nor do most state government. If we need "pandemic response" authority then we need to amend the constition to add the power to the government not just simply declare it so because "The Experts™" have declared that is what is best for us. if that is the measure of our rights, we have no rights at all. If rights can be stripped with a simple declaration of emergency, on which there is no power to challenge that declaration then we have no rights at all To believe the government will not use this unprecedented event for which they have usurped a wide range of never used before power in ever increasing ways is naive and ignores all of human history. It will not be long before the seasonal flu or cold will be enough to warrant draconian measure and limited on personal freedoms, or be used for privacy invading policies like contact tracing all the time (which will then be used for Law Enforcement like in Singapore) it amazes me out people can not see what is next, or maybe than can but simply believe the promise (false promise) of safety is more important than liberty
      - 6y ago
  - eT8AZithxooKei6 6y ago
    They wouldn't prevent you from entering. They'd just make you quarantine once you did.
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    > the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) Well thank god you are not in charge of Policy in the US.
  - bigiain 6y ago
    > That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions Any, you know, the government and law enforcement have _never_ been known to do that... "It's not 'collection' if we permanently record every phonemail/textmessage/email ever sent. It only counts as 'collection' if a human reads/listens to it!" :sigh:
DeRock 6y ago
Borders (and airports) are already a constitutional twilight zone. Just to get into (or sometimes out of) one I have to go through an X-ray scanner or manual groping that on its face would violate the Fourth Amendment. But at the same time, nobody is forcing me to go there.

by syshum 6y ago

jedberg 6y ago

It's part of protecting the borders. The Supreme Court has already determined that anything within 100 miles of the border is the "border zone" and gives the government broad authority to enforce border protection within that zone. Also, it could reasonably argued that it is part of their "protect life" job.

syshum 6y ago
That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions, the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) allowed Federal Law enforcement to stop people with in the border zones to establish if they crossed the border illegally, once Citizenship is established then normal protections snap back into place Even at border crossing the government has been allowed to seize Devices and other things but they generally can not prevent a US Citizen from entering, they can stop you from bringing your stuff, but they cant stop you (outside the limited questioning detainment certainly not 14 days) unless they have an arrest warrant or some other cause of action to arrest you
- jedberg 6y ago
  I agree that they were wrong. But that is how things stand now. And they do have a cause to detain you -- you might be carrying a deadly virus. Until you can prove otherwise, they can detain you.
  - syshum 6y ago
    That is flipping due process on its head, the state has the duty to prove I am a danger to others, I have not duty to prove I am not Having a position that I have to prove my innocence is completely devoid of any due process and is unconstitutional
    - solarengineer 6y ago
      Given that Virus and Biology have no obligation to be compatible with various national and international laws, it is upon human society and governments to work around the virus. Thus, for e.g., people in South East and Far East Asia learned from the earlier pandemics and voluntarily wear face masks to protect themselves and those around them even when one has "just a cold or a cough". People also agreed to socially and physically distance when asked. The messages from scientists and doctors have been enough proof of the dangers that the virus poses.
      - syshum 6y ago
        That is fine, my problem is recently we have just be ignoring the constitution when it is deemed to be a problem The fact remains the federal government has no constitutional authority nor do most state government. If we need "pandemic response" authority then we need to amend the constition to add the power to the government not just simply declare it so because "The Experts™" have declared that is what is best for us. if that is the measure of our rights, we have no rights at all. If rights can be stripped with a simple declaration of emergency, on which there is no power to challenge that declaration then we have no rights at all To believe the government will not use this unprecedented event for which they have usurped a wide range of never used before power in ever increasing ways is naive and ignores all of human history. It will not be long before the seasonal flu or cold will be enough to warrant draconian measure and limited on personal freedoms, or be used for privacy invading policies like contact tracing all the time (which will then be used for Law Enforcement like in Singapore) it amazes me out people can not see what is next, or maybe than can but simply believe the promise (false promise) of safety is more important than liberty
    - 6y ago
- eT8AZithxooKei6 6y ago
  They wouldn't prevent you from entering. They'd just make you quarantine once you did.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  > the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) Well thank god you are not in charge of Policy in the US.
- bigiain 6y ago
  > That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions Any, you know, the government and law enforcement have _never_ been known to do that... "It's not 'collection' if we permanently record every phonemail/textmessage/email ever sent. It only counts as 'collection' if a human reads/listens to it!" :sigh:

DeRock 6y ago

Borders (and airports) are already a constitutional twilight zone. Just to get into (or sometimes out of) one I have to go through an X-ray scanner or manual groping that on its face would violate the Fourth Amendment. But at the same time, nobody is forcing me to go there.