4 ms·

You realize that what you are proposing is not just illegal in the U.S., but unconstitutional? Thankfully we have something called the Bill of Rights. The abso

You realize that what you are proposing is not just illegal in the U.S., but unconstitutional? Thankfully we have something called the Bill of Rights. The absolute zealotry of the "Zero Covid" movement, displayed for us in the comment above, is truly terrifying.

geofft 5y ago
No, I don't realize that - can you explain?
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Forbidding citizens to leave their homes quite clearly violates the right to free expression and free assembly in the First Amendment. I assume you're familiar with it. Thankfully, we haven't had to test these yet in a court of law over covid. That's the beauty of having these rights enumerated explicitly. Would-be tyrants are afraid to challenge them.
  - geofft 5y ago
    I'm familiar with it, but I think I'm familiar with a different version than you are, because I don't see "expression" in it. I see "speech". I also see that the right to assembly is "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In any case, quarantines have in fact been implemented in the US repeatedly over the years. So either the Constitution has changed recently (which might explain why your copy is different from mine), or they were so obviously not a violation of the First Amendment that nobody bothered to test it in a court of law. For instance, here's a 1902 Supreme Court case confirming the ability of a state government to prevent passengers on a ship (some of whom were US citizens attempting to return to their homes) from leaving the ship: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/186/380 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/186/380 No mention is made of the First Amendment. > That from an early day the power of the states to enact and enforce quarantine laws for the safety and the protection of the health of their inhabitants has been recognized by Congress, is beyond question. That until Congress has exercised its power on the subject, such state quarantine laws and state laws for the purpose of preventing, eradicating, or controlling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases, are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, although their operation affects interstate or foreign commerce, is not an open question. (And the implication is that the only thing that would prevent a state from passing laws about quarantines is the federal government passing laws about quarantines and preempting the states - i.e., that Congress could certainly enact a nationwide quarantine if it wanted.) Anyway, this is all beside the point - plenty of places other than the US, with no First Amendment or equivalent, have also failed to ever implement a real lockdown, because a real lockdown would have been politically unpopular. So it's not a matter of constitutionality.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      Quarantines of actually sick individuals, you mean. The use of PCR tests with ridiculously high thresholds to determine "asymptomatic carriers" was an extreme overreach. It was such an overreach that the public health establishment has already backtracked on this level of sensitivity in PCR testing, with respect to vaccinated individuals, because they keep getting all these pesky "false positives" after vaccination. It's really messing with their outreach campaigns, understandably. You can be sure this will all be clarified in litigation over the next few decades while the Trump appointees get to work. Unless, of course, the restrictionists come down off the ledge. It seems you all are folding on all fronts recently. My genuine prediction is that all of this will be moot in a years time once no one pays any mind to the coronabros anymore.
      - geofft 5y ago
        No, I don't mean quarantines of actually sick individuals. I mean quarantines of anyone and everyone, regardless of testing. From the Supreme Court case I linked to: > ... on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans, was there regularly inspected, and was found, both as to the passengers and cargo, to be free from any infectious or contagious disease, and accordingly was given a clean bill of health, whereby the ship became entitled to proceed to New Orleans and land her passengers and discharge her cargo. This, however, it was asserted she was not permitted to do.... Nobody on board the ship was sick, according to tests, and they were still lawfully quarantined, and the law was constitutional. But you're right, this will all be forgotten in a few years and relitigated afresh in the court of public opinion (in every country) next pandemic, just like this particular case has been completely forgotten, the quarantines of the Spanish Flu have been completely forgotten, etc.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        You’re completely misrepresenting the supposed similarities between your example and the reality in 2021. The document you reference is talking about quarantining travelers from abroad before they officially enter the US: > "It was asserted that the plaintiff, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the Republic of France and a citizen of said Republic, on or about September 2, 1898, caused its steamship Britannia to be cleared from the ports of Marseilles, France, and Palermo, Italy, for New Orleans with a cargo of merchandise and with about 408 passengers, some of whom were citizens of the United States returning home, and others who were seeking homes in the United States, and who intended to settle in the state of Louisiana or adjoining states, and that all the passengers referred to at the time of their sailing were free from infectious or contagious diseases. It was further averred that on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans" It does not in any way justify indiscriminately restricting the constitutionally protected freedoms of American citizens, on American soil, for more than a year. Try telling someone in the early 1900's that their church or synagogue is closed for the next 15 months, by order of the U.S government. Good luck. In this case, when Americans have chosen to travel abroad, it justifies a limited quarantine when they return to the country. Nothing more. Indefinite lockdowns of entire states or the entire country is not quarantine. Rather, it's a grave human rights violation that we cargo culted from Communist China. Edit: lol to the comment below. gnight bro.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Sure. But this is an entirely different topic. "Lockdowns achieved nothing" "We didn't actually lockdown" "Lockdowns are illegal" The point is that a huge portion of businesses were completely open through the entire pandemic. A large number of people did not follow health guidelines.

geofft 5y ago

No, I don't realize that - can you explain?

chitowneats 5y ago
Forbidding citizens to leave their homes quite clearly violates the right to free expression and free assembly in the First Amendment. I assume you're familiar with it. Thankfully, we haven't had to test these yet in a court of law over covid. That's the beauty of having these rights enumerated explicitly. Would-be tyrants are afraid to challenge them.
- geofft 5y ago
  I'm familiar with it, but I think I'm familiar with a different version than you are, because I don't see "expression" in it. I see "speech". I also see that the right to assembly is "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In any case, quarantines have in fact been implemented in the US repeatedly over the years. So either the Constitution has changed recently (which might explain why your copy is different from mine), or they were so obviously not a violation of the First Amendment that nobody bothered to test it in a court of law. For instance, here's a 1902 Supreme Court case confirming the ability of a state government to prevent passengers on a ship (some of whom were US citizens attempting to return to their homes) from leaving the ship: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/186/380 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/186/380 No mention is made of the First Amendment. > That from an early day the power of the states to enact and enforce quarantine laws for the safety and the protection of the health of their inhabitants has been recognized by Congress, is beyond question. That until Congress has exercised its power on the subject, such state quarantine laws and state laws for the purpose of preventing, eradicating, or controlling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases, are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, although their operation affects interstate or foreign commerce, is not an open question. (And the implication is that the only thing that would prevent a state from passing laws about quarantines is the federal government passing laws about quarantines and preempting the states - i.e., that Congress could certainly enact a nationwide quarantine if it wanted.) Anyway, this is all beside the point - plenty of places other than the US, with no First Amendment or equivalent, have also failed to ever implement a real lockdown, because a real lockdown would have been politically unpopular. So it's not a matter of constitutionality.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Quarantines of actually sick individuals, you mean. The use of PCR tests with ridiculously high thresholds to determine "asymptomatic carriers" was an extreme overreach. It was such an overreach that the public health establishment has already backtracked on this level of sensitivity in PCR testing, with respect to vaccinated individuals, because they keep getting all these pesky "false positives" after vaccination. It's really messing with their outreach campaigns, understandably. You can be sure this will all be clarified in litigation over the next few decades while the Trump appointees get to work. Unless, of course, the restrictionists come down off the ledge. It seems you all are folding on all fronts recently. My genuine prediction is that all of this will be moot in a years time once no one pays any mind to the coronabros anymore.
    - geofft 5y ago
      No, I don't mean quarantines of actually sick individuals. I mean quarantines of anyone and everyone, regardless of testing. From the Supreme Court case I linked to: > ... on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans, was there regularly inspected, and was found, both as to the passengers and cargo, to be free from any infectious or contagious disease, and accordingly was given a clean bill of health, whereby the ship became entitled to proceed to New Orleans and land her passengers and discharge her cargo. This, however, it was asserted she was not permitted to do.... Nobody on board the ship was sick, according to tests, and they were still lawfully quarantined, and the law was constitutional. But you're right, this will all be forgotten in a few years and relitigated afresh in the court of public opinion (in every country) next pandemic, just like this particular case has been completely forgotten, the quarantines of the Spanish Flu have been completely forgotten, etc.
      - chitowneats 5y ago
        You’re completely misrepresenting the supposed similarities between your example and the reality in 2021. The document you reference is talking about quarantining travelers from abroad before they officially enter the US: > "It was asserted that the plaintiff, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the Republic of France and a citizen of said Republic, on or about September 2, 1898, caused its steamship Britannia to be cleared from the ports of Marseilles, France, and Palermo, Italy, for New Orleans with a cargo of merchandise and with about 408 passengers, some of whom were citizens of the United States returning home, and others who were seeking homes in the United States, and who intended to settle in the state of Louisiana or adjoining states, and that all the passengers referred to at the time of their sailing were free from infectious or contagious diseases. It was further averred that on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans" It does not in any way justify indiscriminately restricting the constitutionally protected freedoms of American citizens, on American soil, for more than a year. Try telling someone in the early 1900's that their church or synagogue is closed for the next 15 months, by order of the U.S government. Good luck. In this case, when Americans have chosen to travel abroad, it justifies a limited quarantine when they return to the country. Nothing more. Indefinite lockdowns of entire states or the entire country is not quarantine. Rather, it's a grave human rights violation that we cargo culted from Communist China. Edit: lol to the comment below. gnight bro.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Sure. But this is an entirely different topic. "Lockdowns achieved nothing" "We didn't actually lockdown" "Lockdowns are illegal" The point is that a huge portion of businesses were completely open through the entire pandemic. A large number of people did not follow health guidelines.