71–80 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being dead violates our right to life.
What a ridiculous statement. You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.
You can enforce it on how a government responds to natural events, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. When these cases make their way through the courts I’m thinking they’re going to side with the Musks, not the Newsoms.
>> The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. That would be illegal, but isn't what is happening. An outright ban on all work would certainly be unconstitutional (life liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). But temporarily shutting down a business because of a virus, safety issues, lack of insurance, pollution worries, failure to pay taxes, inadequate lighting in the parking lots, to…
One of those isn't in the Constitution, the other two are only protected against deprivation without due process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it violates the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in the same way forbidding the possession of nuclear warheads violates the 2nd amendment: kinda, but for the greater good.
You'd be surprised the number of people who believe nuclear warheads are protected by the second amendment. Either way, that's a fair compromise and this is not.
If your answer is no, please make the same argument but replace the word 'mask' with 'pants'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a ridiculous statement. You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature.
> You cannot enforce the Constitution on edit: acts of nature. You can enforce it on how a government responds to natural events, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exaggerated maybe but not ridiculous. A persons right to pursue happiness does not trump other people's rights to do the same. Willing spreading an infectious virus is not an act of nature.
Your wording of "willingly spread" is also exaggerated, and I fail to see how you equate that to a person taking the generally accepted measures to prevent the spread while in public. Event still, this isn't HIV we're talking about here, and it will presumably be seasonal going forward. Most people who even contract this will walk away perfectly fine. There are currently 36 million jobless claims from the shutdowns.…
The shutdown isn't a solution, it's a way to buy time and prevent things from getting worse while we adapt and find solutions.
If you want to shift the debate from whether the shutdown has merit to how long it should last then it's a matter of judging the progress being made.
As for the nature of the virus, it's certainly not as deadly as HIV but it's a lot more infectious. Most people would be fine but if half the population is infected the resulting death toll will be enormous. I wouldn't presume it will be season either, from what I can tell the consensus is that we will be dealing with this until vaccination is widespread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't shut down the entire economy for a disease with a death rate well under 1%. You need to protect and isolate the vulnerable until a vaccine is ready, and get back to living.
Maybe the compromise is to let they people who willing to take the risk do the jobs with high chance of exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.
Liberty (as well as life and property) can be denied by a State under the Constitution if it is not done without due process (see the 14th Amendment); pursuit of happiness isn't a Constitutional right at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the compromise is to let they people who willing to take the risk do the jobs with high chance of exposure.
The compromise is allowing people and companies to make their own choices about their own well-being and livelihood.
This is a public health issue. This is not a civil liberties issue. Don't fall for Musk's hypocritical "FREE AMERICA NOW" nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the compromise is to let they people who willing to take the risk do the jobs with high chance of exposure.
The compromise is allowing people and companies to make their own choices about their own well-being and livelihood.
Hypothetical:
1) Your cash-flow strapped employer, whose CEO has a history of possible SMI and legally questionable behavior, decides he has the bravery to risk lives and free the economy by opening up his factory against the advice of the state.
2) You, a 50 year old assembly line engineer with a history of smoking, are unable to find a new job because of the pandemic.
Luckily, from the server farm warmth of its reinforcement-learning heart approximation, your employers "allows" those that can work from home to do so. Unluckily for you, you can't do your job from home, so you go to work against your best judgement.
It's either that or be replaced immediately by a younger/healthier person who lost their job weeks ago because their former employer also chose not to plan for a rainy day.
Sound more like a bigger mouse trap.