Stay At Home Orders

[army judge]

why is a judge issuing this order to begin with?

Texas has many uniquely Texan things.

Each of Texas' 254 counties is led by an elected "county judge".

The "county judge" would be akin to "county administrator" or "county executive" in other states.

Our "county judges" are the executive who also leads our elected county commissioners.

We also have judges that sit on "county courts", as opposed to our highest superior courts, "district courts".

The "county judge" is NOT to be confused with sitting jurists on our county courts, but often outsiders confuse the two positions.

I suspect the title goes back to our early days when the title "judge" added a certain respect to the position, much as the title "high sheriff" does to state law enforcement or US Marshal does to federal law enforcement because BOTH are constitutionally derived offices.

The governor's orders are not necessarily binding to the public simply because he/she is the governor. Extending the order to the entire public is an overreach beyond any other previously.

I concur, because to state it any other way is ignore our amazing US constitution, and in Texas our state constitution.

 

[mightymoose]

And, as food for thought, do you think that you should have the right to infect others? Does your right to free assembly mean that you have a right to present that risk to others?

No. This is why the government does reserve authority to quarantine those who are sick or otherwise present a health risk to the public.
A quarantine is not for all people for their own good, or for the public good, but for those who are actually infected or believed to be.
As I mentioned early on, a perfect example of this is the quarantine of the passengers on the infected cruise ships when they came to port.

Top justify the restriction there must be some fact to rely on that leads to believe the person being restricted is a risk to others.

Fear alone is insufficient. Fear is why some people will choose to isolate indoors while the rest go about their business in peace.

 

[mightymoose]

No. Again, ownership/possession of firearms is a very different situation...

I don't see it that way. If one constitutionally protected right can be taken away by executive order out of fear, and for the public good, then so can another.
Rights are not absolute, but we do have this concept of due process that is required to take them away.

 

[mightymoose]

Moreover, my comment was meant to suggest that even if you have the right to go out and socialize you ought to consider the common good and voluntarily refrain so that you don't unknowingly harm your fellow citizens by infecting them

I think people are willing to do this, and are doing this, which is why overreaching executive orders are unnecessary. The fact that the order even exists is offensive, regardless of who it is actually effecting. Such overreach can not be ignored and go unchecked.
State and local governments could be just as effective simply by driving an information campaign, as well as reasonable restrictions on businesses via licensing and health regulations.

 

[mightymoose]

Texas has many uniquely Texan things.

You mean like this?

 

[army judge]

You mean like this?
View attachment 2518

Or like these...

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That's one pastor, not a whole religion. Try again.

You clearly aren't familiar with the once church religions that exist around the country. There is what used to be a Southern Baptist about 5 blocks away that left the denomination because they felt the Southern Baptists were to liberal.

It may not be a thing in New England but these one-offs where the paster pretty much is God on earth aren't that rare.

Also, it wasn't that long ago that the Roman Catholic church taught it was a mortal sin to not go to mass.

 

[army judge]

Also, it wasn't that long ago that the Roman Catholic church taught it was a mortal sin to not go to mass.

Not that you need anyone to verify the above assertion, but as a life long Catholic, I KNOW you are 100% correct.

 

[cbg]

But that's not taught any more. And even the Southern Baptists (we have them up here too) know that the church is not the building.

 

[Tax Counsel]

[To] justify the restriction there must be some fact to rely on that leads to believe the person being restricted is a risk to others.

Have you not paid attention to the science involved here? A person may be infected with the virus and not even know it. Those who develop symptoms may be infected and communicating that disease to others for up to two weeks before they know they have the disease, and some who get it never even know they have the disease and thus may spread it for even longer than two weeks because they have few or no symptoms at all. If this were a disease that strikes as soon as you get infected or if we had the resources to promptly and regularly test people for the disease then we could go with just quarantining those who are known to have it. The whole problem is that that we don't know who has it and we do know infected persons are out there who don't yet know that they are infected. This is not, as you assert, simply "fear". There is medical science being applied here. The recommendations on dealing with the disease are coming from doctors — you know, the people actually trained in medicine and how diseases work. Even Trump, who does not seem to put much stock in science, now seems to finally be listening to at least some of the advice of his medical advisors.

 

[mightymoose]

A person may be infected with the virus and not even know it.

All the more reason for those who fear for their health to isolate and avoid public contact. It is their choice to do so. Without sufficient reason to believe someone is infected, such as being in close contact with someone known to be infected, there is no justification to deprive an individual of their freedom. Fear alone is inadequate. A good example here is Senator Romney quarantining due to close contact with Senator Paul, who was known to be infected.

This is not, as you assert, simply "fear".

You are right, it is becoming more like hysteria.

I believe it was you who acknowledged the problem earlier. The legislature, state and federal, has failed to address this issue and has left the government with inadequate tools. Their failure to act does not justify depriving anyone of personal freedoms.

You give very good reasons why people SHOULD isolate themselves, but it is not the place of the government to order it. At least, not by executive order directly to the people. A justifiable order requires more.

The Constitution does not go out the window on a doctor's order.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Without sufficient reason to believe someone is infected, such as being in close contact with someone known to be infected, there is no justification to deprive an individual of their freedom.

That's where you and I disagree. I think that given the science, ordering people to stay away from others is the logical thing to do — and the medical authorities agree with that. A person might be a carrier and not know it. You agreed earlier that we don't have a right to go around infecting others. Well, given that there are people out there unknowingly spreading the disease we need to take steps to contain them and limit the spread. Our rights do not extend to doing harm to others. There is a compelling government interest here, and as I pointed out from the case law earlier, a compelling government interest may be sufficient to justify a restriction on our rights, so long as the restriction is targeted to dealing with that compelling interest. You've been stating standards for judging whether a restriction is constitutional that are not reflected in the law — the standards you would like to exist rather than what is actually found in the case law. I get that you really dislike these restrictions. You want to do whatever you want to do and everyone else be damned. But the standard is not what you want it to be, though I can see you don't like it. Well, there are all kinds of laws out there that one or more people don't like. There are laws I don't like. But not liking it doesn't make the law invalid.

 

[mightymoose]

Kansas Governor Sues Lawmakers Who Revoked Limit on Church Gatherings

Stay-at-Home Orders and Travel Bans Spur Constitutional Fights

Adams County prosecutor urges Gov. Little to rescind Idaho stay-at-home order: 'I cannot in good conscience enforce it'

Stephen Owens: Constitution must be preserved during crisis

 

[mightymoose]

You agreed earlier that we don't have a right to go around infecting others.

Knowingly.

I think that given the science, ordering people to stay away from others is the logical thing to do...

I just don't believe there is a basis for this type of blanket order that is applied to an entire population. That is not narrowly defined at all. Infected or not, everyone stay home and don't come out except for the reasons given. That just doesn't work.
The fact that it is an order at all is what makes it offensive. Simply presented as guidelines and information would preserve civil liberties while reserving orders for those actually found to be sick. The authority to control movement and quarantine (at last here in CA) is written in a manner that is clearly intended to apply to those who are infected or otherwise present a reasonable risk. The fear of potential infection, and potential spread, is not reasonable without some factual basis indicating exposure. It is simply fear.
Stanford is conducting a study to determine if a large portion of the population is already immune, possibly having been exposed a year ago. Why should immune people be deprived of civil rights? This could be millions of people.
I get that we disagree on this point. This is a significant issue that will get sorted out in the coming cases throughout the states.

Our rights do not extend to doing harm to others.

Again, knowingly. These orders are based on fear of the unknown.

You've been stating standards for judging whether a restriction is constitutional that are not reflected in the law

I believe I have been questioning the authority used, and whether by executive order the governor or other local body can compel an entire population of a city or state to confine themselves to their homes except for specific reasons the government deems essential. I have been arguing overreach- that the authority does not exist. If so then it does not matter what method is used to judge the restrictions- they are invalid.

You want to do whatever you want to do and everyone else be damned.

Don't assume too much about what I want to do. My habits have hardly been effected by all of this. That I am not personally effected by this (yet) does not mean I can't take issue with a heavy handed government aiming to criminalize civil liberties.


New California antibody study could point to possible herd immunity to COVID-19

 

[Tax Counsel]

Stanford is conducting a study to determine if a large portion of the population is already immune, possibly having been exposed a year ago. Why should immune people be deprived of civil rights? This could be millions of people.

And when we get that information that could identify those people, then there is a basis for exempting them from stay at home orders. The White House has already raised the idea of providing immunity cards to such persons for just that purpose. Right now, however, we don't have that information nor do we have the means to do the testing to determine who is immune. As our knowledge and capabilities improve, the better we can develop less intrusive means to combat it.

I believe I have been questioning the authority used, and whether by executive order the governor or other local body can compel an entire population of a city or state to confine themselves to their homes except for specific reasons the government deems essential. I have been arguing overreach- that the authority does not exist. If so then it does not matter what method is used to judge the restrictions- they are invalid.

Honestly, what you have been doing is taking your conclusion that it is not valid and working back to try to justify that. That is not the approach I take. Rather, what I do is look at the facts we have and the standards that the courts have set out as to what is constitutional and then work from there to determine if such orders would be unconstitutional. Similarly, I look at the facts and the existing statutes that are on the books to see what authority the government has to sanction those who will not comply with what the government has ordered. I don't start with the premise and work backwards because by doing that you've already determined the outcome you want and that bias then affects the outcome of your analysis.

Don't assume too much about what I want to do. My habits have hardly been effected by all of this. That I am not personally effected by this (yet) does not mean I can't take issue with a heavy handed government aiming to criminalize civil liberties.

But underlying that concern for civil liberties seems to be an attitude that, if not you personally, the public ought to be be able to do whatever it wants and the rest of society be damned. Who cares if by doing that we spread the disease that much more and doom many thousands more to die than would be the case if we worked to contain the spread? In short, it seems that you would place civil liberties above the safety of others. I am all for protecting civil liberties, but not to the point of costing others their lives.

 

[Highwayman]

What gets me is that there are municipalities threatening people with fines and/or arrest for violating whatever rules they've promulgated, yet they're releasing convicted criminals from jails and prisons for their safety.

One county in upstate NY released a number of convicted Level 3 sex offenders and put them up in a motel - apparently with little to no supervision - and "encouraged" the motel staff to report any of them if they leave. The county sheriff is up in arms because his agency wasn't even notified of the release.

 

[Disabled Vet]

I know that local law enforcement have stated here in Indiana they will ticket folks for not staying home. Unless they are traveling for job, food etc... Yet, our state parks are open except for camp grounds, office buildings. they are not collecting entrance fees as well. I was pulled over for towing my boat to the lake. They gave me a verbal warning and told me to go home. I told them to look at my license plate again. Disabled American Veteran plate... I will continue my travels to the lake. They could follow me if they liked. Hell... One of them could go fishing with me since the back of the boat is more then 6' away. They didn't follow me... I think some folks have lost their minds over this virus. If you're scared.... stay home. Don't tell me I can't go fishing on a lake where I am the only one there.

 

[justblue]

Let try a story:

One day a youngish and healthy Mighty Mouse and two of his buddies, Rocky and Bullwinkle, went to their friend Underdogs house. They wanted to play some poker and have a few beers.

Unbeknownst to any of them Underdogs wife, Sweet Polly Purebred, who was neither sweet nor pure, had spent a day 2 weeks ago with her sometimes lover, Simon Bar Sinister. Simon was sick with covid-19 and not symptomatic when he and Polly did the nasty.

Polly has not displayed any signs of covid-19 but she did pass it to Underdog, who then passed it on to MM, Rocky and Bullwinkle. Now...none of these characters know that they have covid....they feel fine. They feel fine as they visit with their family's (Bullwinkle gave it to his mother and 2 month old niece), they feel fine as they went to Wally World to buy groceries. They felt fine as they visited their friends Yogi and BooBoo at Jellystone Park where they did some fishing.

All in all they gave this virus to over 250 others before they became aware that they were sick. Those 250 spread it to several thousand friend/family.

Many of these people died....including Bullwinkle's mother and baby niece.

Should Mighty Mouse and his buddies rights be more important than the health and well being of others? No.

 

[army judge]

Don't tell me I can't go fishing on a lake where I am the only one there.

I have heard it said that the USA is the home of the free and the land of the brave.

You and I are part of that small percentage who fought in our nation's battles so that we can remain the home of the free and the land of the brave.

The so called "science" has praised South Korea for allegedly "controlling and thwarting" the ChiComm virus.

Yet, today we learn the following:

South Korea reports recovered coronavirus patients testing positive again

Some might say the person on your left is more of a scientist than the one on your right...

 

[mightymoose]

"(W)e all need to take a breath and not succumb to our fears. We are talking about criminalizing our civil liberties and taking away the constitutional rights of our citizens."

I am happy to find that this sentiment is found throughout the country and at various levels of government.


Fresno Police Chief: Stay-at-Home Orders Only 'Panic' Community - GV Wire