Three more New York sheriffs say they won’t enforce Cuomo’s Thanksgiving limit

[Buy1Sell2]

Mask and other pandemic mandates are not a Supreme Court issue. If you listened to the arguments in the Texas v California case a couple weeks back you’d know this.

Actually, the ability of a governor to institute a mask mandate or lock-down is most certainly a Supreme Court issue. It just needs to get there and you'll see. In short though, governors have no authority to require either especially for longer periods of time. Governors can only suggest.

 

[UsualName]

Actually, the ability of a governor to institute a mask mandate or lock-down is most certainly a Supreme Court issue. It just needs to get there and you'll see. In short though, governors have no authority to require either especially for longer periods of time. Governors can only suggest.

This is exactly wrong. Roberts questioned counsel about this very issue in Texas v California.

 

[Tsing Tao]

This is why we actually need more humanities in education. You live in an organized nation with a government - you, as a participant, have agreed to the social compact. This is not a pirate nation. If you wish to change the rule of law, there are elections for this but you should know your argument of I have no right blah blah blah isn’t anything more than a feeling. It absolutely means nothing and is kind of thuggish.

Ah, I see. So do you believe there should no be limits to what the government can and cannot do to your private life so long as they claim national health interest?

Because the founding fathers very much disagreed with this philosophy.

 

[UsualName]

Ah, I see. So do you believe there should no be limits to what the government can and cannot do to your private life so long as they claim national health interest?

Because the founding fathers very much disagreed with this philosophy.

Of course not. For example, the Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights (what the government cannot do). States have similar laws.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Of course not. For example, the Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights (what the government cannot do). States have similar laws.

Ok, excellent. So does the definition of what you find acceptable and not acceptable fall within the Bill of Rights? Or in the case of the states, what laws they have on the books?

Meaning, if a law is on the books in the states, you consider this to be an acceptable application/infringement into freedom if applied to citizens of that state?

 

[kmgilroy89]

Honestly, if you believe in the Roe v. Wade ruling you have to believe this is unconstitutional as well. It would be extremely inconsistent with the idea of a fundamental right to privacy for you to take a stand otherwise.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

This is exactly wrong. Roberts questioned counsel about this very issue in Texas v California.

You've no clue whatsoballsout.

 

[UsualName]

Ok, excellent. So does the definition of what you find acceptable and not acceptable fall within the Bill of Rights? Or in the case of the states, what laws they have on the books?

Meaning, if a law is on the books in the states, you consider this to be an acceptable application/infringement into freedom if applied to citizens of that state?

Laws and their applications are open to Judicial review. So it would depend on the law, the state constitution, the federal constitution, and the application.

Are you trying to argue there is a legal infringement on New York’s gathering limitations?

 

[UsualName]

You've no clue whatsoballsout.

Is this a reference to Rudy Giuliani?

 

[UsualName]

Honestly, if you believe in the Roe v. Wade ruling you have to believe this is unconstitutional as well. It would be extremely inconsistent with the idea of a fundamental right to privacy for you to take a stand otherwise.

How so?