Stay At Home Orders

[mightymoose]

...and group gatherings over 10 are not allowed.

I still take issue with that, but it sounds as if your state is not as authoritative over this as others. Where I am at local counties are now using their own orders on top of the one the governor already issued. It is redundant silliness, probably just so they can say they did something when it comes time for reelection... But for me it is a reason to vote them out.

 

[cynthiag]

Interestingly, before they even said no groups of 10 or more, people were voluntarily suspending gatherings. We had churches who adopted the idea of virtual services (a lot of them livestream their services anyhow) before any mandates came out, I believe, and other groups did so as well out of an abundance of caution. My employer was very proactive about getting people who fell into higher risk categories set up to work from home to minimize possible exposure for them, early on in the pandemic.

I guess a lot of people have just tended to look at these measures as more protective than restrictive. We're a different bunch, us Alaskans!

 

[justblue]

I appreciate that, but was hoping for more of a legal analysis of the orders being issued. Maybe there is some aspect I haven't looked at that really does

Interestingly, before they even said no groups of 10 or more, people were voluntarily suspending gatherings. We had churches who adopted the idea of virtual services (a lot of them livestream their services anyhow) before any mandates came out, I believe, and other groups did so as well out of an abundance of caution. My employer was very proactive about getting people who fell into higher risk categories set up to work from home to minimize possible exposure for them, early on in the pandemic.

I guess a lot of people have just tended to look at these measures as more protective than restrictive. We're a different bunch, us Alaskans!

Can you see Russia from your house?

** sorry....I couldn't resist.

 

[cynthiag]

 

[army judge]

I am curious if anyone cares to share their view on the various state and local stay at home orders being issued around the country.

I am sure the legal status of these orders will be sorted out later, but that is no help to people who choose to live free now.

You raise a very contentious topic, my friend.

In fact, several attorneys and judges have been discussing these various state, county, and municipal decrees over the past three weeks.

We've been doing this via Zoom to ensure none of us get accused of violating the various "stay at home" decrees.

The public will soon hear of federal constitutional law cases that argue primarily 1st amendment deprivations in TX, LA, NY, CA, FL (plus a few more states) that MIGHT be filed if the decrees aren't suspended within the next 21 to 30 days.

We are in agreement that restricting religious practitioners to assemble in their sanctuary denies them a very important constitutional right.

You might also see a filing that addresses imposition of curfews on military bases and municipalities.

These current topics were also hotly debated during 70s/80s, as the AIDs/HIV epidemic began to appear.

Oddly enough, there was enough pressure from those with vested interests that prevented isolation/quarantine of individuals that had contracted that virus.

The argument recently appeared during the "Ebola" outbreak a few years ago.

In the interim, I'm looking, listening, and learning with my wife in our secret, secure underground bunker.

 

[army judge]

One of the great things I have always loved about the USA (enough that I wore her uniform for 31 years and spent almost six years fighting her wars) is that one is allowed to be as stupid as he or she desires.


"Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." - Robert Heinlein

 

[cbg]

For the record, I have attended church services for the last three weeks without ever leaving my house.

 

[army judge]

For the record, I have attended church services for the last three weeks without ever leaving my house.

I am happy and delighted for you.

My wife and I started viewing our church's online services last month.

I have no beef with those who do take issue with the current decrees.

This country is quite diverse, and I respect the views of those who disagree with mine.

Meet the former NYT reporter who is challenging the coronavirus narrative


Tucker Carlson on the coronavirus models: Why have they been wrong?

 

[cbg]

My point is that it isn't necessary to go out to attend religious service. There can't be a constitutional violation if the option exists.

 

[adjusterjack]

The public will soon hear of federal constitutional law cases that argue primarily 1st amendment deprivations in TX, LA, NY, CA, FL (plus a few more states) that MIGHT be filed if the decrees aren't suspended within the next 21 to 30 days.

The sad part of that is that sue happy Americans will probably set a new world record for lawsuits per capita.

 

[army judge]

My point is that it isn't necessary to go out to attend religious service. There can't be a constitutional violation if the option exists.

None of these issues will be decided until a court hands down a decision.

Until and unless that occurs, there will be many opinions offered by all of those who choose to weigh in on the subject.

Noting said or done surprises me, nothing ever surprised me, because I have seen the propensity of humankind to bicker, opine, and whine.

 

[army judge]

The sad part of that is that sue happy Americans will probably set a new world record for lawsuits per capita.

Maybe, but that is also a right to seek redress of one's grievances against their government(s), better that it be done in court than on the streets.

 

[mightymoose]

My point is that it isn't necessary to go out to attend religious service. There can't be a constitutional violation if the option exists.

The constitution protects the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It does not matter for what purpose or if there in an alternative available. The restriction of that right without due process is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights.

 

[mightymoose]

Another thought regarding these executive orders....
Executive orders are a tool used to direct policy through government agencies.
Is there any example in the past in which an executive order has been directly applicable to the people?

 

[army judge]

Is there any example in the past in which an executive order has been directly applicable to the people?

There was the DACA EO authored by FAUX FAUX, there were several created by FDR during WWII, Wilson had a hand at a couple during WWI, disHonest Abe used them during the Northern Insurrection, even Ike used a couple to break up labor walkouts.

Some El Presidentes used them with great restraint.

William Henry Harrison is the ONLY one to never have authored an EO.

Three El Presidentes authored only one EO.

Here is a list of all 45 El Presidentes and their EO handiwork.

List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia

 

[Tax Counsel]

The constitution protects the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It does not matter for what purpose or if there in an alternative available. The restriction of that right without due process is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court and federal appeals courts disagree with you regarding the standard to be applied. It is not an issue of due process. Rather, the basic rule applied to most First Amendment cases is that that for a government restriction on those rights to survive constitutional challenge the government must show that it had a compelling interest in imposing the restriction and that the restriction imposed was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. There are thousands of cases applying that standard. The overwhelming number of cases in this area involve the right of free speech, but the Supreme Court applies the compelling interest analysis to the right of free assembly (and other First Amendment rights), too, as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion:

The 'unrelated' person provision of the present Act has an impact on the rights of people to associate for lawful purposes with whom they choose. When state action 'may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate' it 'is subject to the closest scrutiny.' NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S., at 460—461, 78 S.Ct., at 1171. The 'right of the people peaceably to assemble' guaranteed by the First Amendment covers a wide spectrum of human interests—including, as stated in id., at 460, 78 S.Ct., at 1171, 'political, economic, religious, or cultural matters.' Banding together to combat the common foe of hunger is in that category. The case therefore falls within the zone represented by Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, which held that a waiting period on welfare imposed by a State on the 'in-migration of indigents' penalizing the constitutional right to travel could not be sustained absent a 'compelling governmental interest.' Id., at 631, 634, 89 S.Ct., at 1329, 1331.​

U. S. Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 544–45, 93 S. Ct. 2821, 2831, 37 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1973)(J. Douglas concurring)(bolding added).

And in noting the difference between the requirements for a union rule restricting the right of assembly under federal law and the standard for government rules restricting the right of assembly, the Sixth Circuit also noted the same standard:

For example, union rules must only be "reasonable" to be valid under § 101(a)(2), which guarantees free speech and assembly rights to union members, whereas governmental regulations must further a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to be valid under the First Amendment. Id. at 111, 102 S.Ct. 2339.

United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local 911 v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 301 F.3d 468, 473 (6th Cir. 2002)(bolding added).

The more compelling the government interest involved, the more likely the government action is to be upheld. Here we have a situation in which medical experts stated that without action upwards of 2 million Americans might die from this disease in a relatively short period of time, and many more require serious treatment and suffer harm. Trying to prevent that catastrophic outcome strikes me as a very compelling government interest, and I rather think the courts will, too. While I cannot say that every action taken in every jurisdiction would necessarily meet that standard, I think that a lot of the actions likely would hold up to a constitutional challenge.

Where the government may have more difficulty is simply finding the statutory authority to uphold the actions taken. Most states and the federal government lack laws that really fit this situation and that creates a challenge in invoking laws that were designed for other purposes to fit this crisis. Ideally states would have brought their legislatures back to session to pass laws that fit the purpose. But of course that would have presented a health risk to the legislators and might not have resulted in the kind of fast legislation needed.

Your analogy the second amendment fails here. First, the standard used for second amendment is different. Second, and more significantly, the risk posed by gun ownership is much different than the risk posed by a contagious disease. As gun rights advocates like point out, "guns don't kill people, people do". Thus the risk with guns is that a few people with criminal intent go out and kill others. So what you ideally do is try to keep the guns out of the hands of those people while allowing the rest who can use them responsibly to have them. You don't have to prohibit everyone from owning guns to tackle the problem. But with this disease, you can be carrier and spread the disease without ever knowing you've had it. You can kill potentially thousands of others without having any intent to do so or knowing you are doing so. Literally anyone could be carrier and spread it to others. There is no way to tell who is a carrier and who isn't until they actually get symptoms or are tested. So simply quarantining those with active disease isn't enough. By the time they are sick, they've potentially infected numerous others. So the response to that must take that problem into account. Ownership of guns doesn't pose anywhere near the same problem and risks.

 

[army judge]

Pastor claims he'll be holding Easter services on Sunday for 1,000 believers.


Pastor who said his congregation would 'rather die than miss church' to hold Easter service with 1,000 people

Coryell County Judge decrees County residents BARRED from leaving county yet fails to describe HOW the ban will be enforced.

Coryell County issues travel restrictions

Americans and their Aussie cousins are a cantankerous, recalcitrant, obstinate lot.

I wonder how much longer will the citizenry remain docile and compliant?

 

[cbg]

The constitution protects the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It does not matter for what purpose or if there in an alternative available. The restriction of that right without due process is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights.

And in my state, at least, you still can. Just in groups of 10 or less.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

My point is that it isn't necessary to go out to attend religious service. There can't be a constitutional violation if the option exists.

The problem with that is there are religions that don't agree that virtual services are the same as being there.

 

[justblue]

The problem with that is there are religions that don't agree that virtual services are the same as being there.

God is everywhere.