What If Trump Is Not Elected?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

More stream-of-consciousness nonsense. It doesn't explain, or give details. It's just verbal diarrhea. I'm pretty sure you've never read the Constitution.

If liberals ever read the Constitution they would shut the fuck up!

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

If liberals ever read the Constitution they would shut the fuck up!

Why? The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Your post just seems ignorant.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yeah, assembly on private property must be protected. And also we should exercise common sense in how we do that given the Covid-19 epidemic.

I think the argument is stronger for masks than for seat belts. They both save lives. The difference is that seat belts are mostly for the benefit of the person who's wearing them, so there's a strong argument that decision should be left up to the individual. Admittedly though that's not entirely true because the taxpayer and other insurance policy holders often pick up the tab for the medical expenses.

With masks, you're protecting other people more than you're protecting yourself. You're less of a health risk to others when you wear one. But like you in general I don't like the government telling people what to do, unless it's necessary. For masks, the benefits to the economy and to public health outweigh the abridgment of freedom IMHO.

I'm probably a hypocrite because I am eating in restaurants, although trying to stay away from the crowded ones where you can't social distance.

Problem is, when all this started, we were told that masks really wouldn't be effective because the virus was so small that no mask could stop it. And you actually should not wear them because there weren't enough for the essential workers. Now I understand the intellectual argument that THEY are more important than the rest of us because if they are dead, who does the treating but intellectual argument aside, that would violate my right to life and liberty to protect myself. Then there was the argument that wearing a mask that didn't fit properly as most don't, made you tend to touch your face with your hands which is the number one way to surely get the virus so maybe you shouldn't wear a mask and just remember to wash your hands and don't touch your face, Yeah right, don't touch your face!



Then all of a sudden, that narrative changed which begs the question, why did it change? Because the science changed? I don't think so. I think the politics changed, how to control the narrative changed. How the experts would sound more expert changed but I don't believe the science ever did.


I am absolutely in agreement that my local grocery store, government buildings, local transportation regulated by government, Home Depot, liquor store etc. can put a sign on their door saying that if you want to enter this private property, you must wear a mask. If you feel strongly enough that you don't want to wear a mask, shop some where else which is your absolute right.


But you can be arrested and or fined for not wearing a mask outside your home on a public street? That's were I draw the line even if a good argument can be made that you are a hazard to the health of somebody walking close to you. I think THAT violates your constitutional right.



That picture seen so much on the news of hundreds of young people at a private water park that outraged so many, it was not an essential place that you had to be. It was ones choice to be there. And to tell people that no more than 10 people can go into a church, I find that outrageous but most outrageous of all, was the Gov. of Michigan telling residents that had a second home, that they may not travel to that second home.


Come on people, that's a no-brainer, right? An absolute violation of ones constitutional right and yet we let it happen.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Why? The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Your post just seems ignorant.

And yet people in all walks of life are being fired because of their speech. This may be one of the most mis-understand of all our rights. The first amendment guarantees that "the government" may not violate your right to free speech, your employer can and even that has limitations like the government prosecuting you for yelling fire in a crowed space and of terrorism and outright calling for the death of somebody on social media. You do not have the right to that speech.


The right of people to peacefully assemble? Apparently not in the age of Covid. So where does it give the government the right to make that decision, that when we are afraid of a virus, that part of the first amendment can be suspended for a time the government deems necessary.


Apparently it's in there some where.


Now we are having a discussion on what is "press" and what isn't. Is Facebook press like the New York Times? Is Facebook a "publisher" or merely a platform and if it is indeed a private enterprise, is there anything the government can do to regulate either Facebook or the New York Times?



Apparently there is.


Apparently everything in the constitution is open to interpretation or we wouldn't need a Supreme Court which IMHO, just yesterday decided to legislate from the bench and make new law, something the constitution says only the legislature may do.


Everything written is apparently open to interpretation day to day, year to year, generation to generation.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

So how does "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" allow rioting, looting, stealing, revision of history and violence exactly?

You conveying that it falls under free speech, when assembly and petition is specifically enumerated? Your post just seems ignorant.

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Why? The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Your post just seems ignorant.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Why? The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Your post just seems ignorant.

Does this mean, if it's not prevented by a State's constitution, that a state's elected leaders could prohibit freedom of speech, the press, assembly, or religion? If a state did that, what basis would federal courts have for overruling it?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Come on people, that's a no-brainer, right? An absolute violation of ones constitutional right and yet we let it happen.

Sorry, as applied to masks and laws requiring people to be seated 3 feet or 6 feet apart, I don't get it, any more than I get seat belt laws being absolute violations of one's constitutional rights.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

So how does "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" allow rioting, looting, stealing, revision of history and violence exactly?

It doesn't and it never has. The same Lunatics who say it does are the same ones who are trying to regulate the Trump rally participants who are ASSEMBLING to pay their respects to Mr. Trump!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Does this mean, if it's not prevented by a State's constitution, that a state's elected leaders could prohibit freedom of speech, the press, assembly, or religion? If a state did that, what basis would federal courts have for overruling it?

Surely you know the answer to that.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the

federal

constitution, and

federal law

generally, take precedence over

state laws

, and even

state

constitutions.

The Constitution/ Federal law supersedes any state law. We found that out when Arizona tried to write it's own immigration law.


What is interesting though and telling about how all this can work sometimes, is the fact that states have written their own drug laws while the federal government keeps telling us they could over rule them "if they wanted". Kinda throws the whole Federal law supersedes state law up for grabs.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Sorry, as applied to masks and laws requiring people to be seated 3 feet or 6 feet apart, I don't get it, any more than I get seat belt laws being absolute violations of one's constitutional rights.

It's what happens when "we the people" allow the federal government to do what the Constitution says they may not do. I guess in a national emergency like COVID ( although that will be disputed for years to come ) the government can for a specified time ( which they could periodically review ) suspend our Constitutional rights, mandating a seat belt law is way over the line. When the government says "we are doing this for your own good" is the time to challenge them.



I would think that if the SC ever heard the seat belt law they would say NO WAY! How does your wearing a seat belt protect somebody else I would ask. If I have the absolute right to sky dive or climb Everest, I should have the right to drive without a seat belt. As for insurance, if we we felt strongly enough about it and we didn't want the government mandating it, we might just have to pay higher insurance rates but again, that should be our choice. Put it to a vote whether we want a federal seat belt law.


I think there are many things our Governors have done that would not pass Constitutional muster but of course they will never get that far.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It doesn't and it never has. The same Lunatics who say it does are the same ones who are trying to regulate the Trump rally participants who are ASSEMBLING to pay their respects to Mr. Trump!

Trump is a masterful brand manager. So now it's a Trump protest against the fatal mental disorder called TDS, not a rally. Come on man, it Saul Goodman.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Trump is a masterful brand manager.

Trump Junior is. He's also an excellent bean counter. Trump Junior is.

1 million + tickets for the 1st rally?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Trump Junior is. He's also an excellent bean counter. Trump Junior is.

1 million + tickets for the 1st rally?

Biden can't sell out the backseat of a Mini Cooper for a rally, err, uh, I mean protest.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Biden can't sell out the backseat of a Mini Cooper for a rally, err, uh, I mean protest.

It is entertaining when they try though.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I would think that if the SC ever heard the seat belt law they would say NO WAY! How does your wearing a seat belt protect somebody else I would ask. If I have the absolute right to sky dive or climb Everest, I should have the right to drive without a seat belt. As for insurance, if we we felt strongly enough about it and we didn't want the government mandating it, we might just have to pay higher insurance rates but again, that should be our choice. Put it to a vote whether we want a federal seat belt law.

Exactly. You could argue that the taxpayer often has to foot the bill for the medical expenses but it's a weaker argument than the one you could make for requiring people to wear masks. Still there are seatbelt laws.

Maybe this is a better analogy for masks. On New Years Eve I would have loved to spray about 20 rounds from my 56 SKS straight up in the air to impress my date, but didn't do it out of respect for other people's lives, and because it's against the law. You could probably come up with some 2nd amendment argument that my rights were being violated if I had actually done it and gotten arrested, but that would go against common sense. It's like the old saying that crying out fire in a crowded theater isn't protected by freedom of speech.