Ok maybe I’m thinking different criteria than you. Wouldn’t ANY ruling that didn’t specifically use the exact wording of the constitution violate what you’re saying? So the first example of the court using any type of wording in excess of the Constitution?
America has lost its freedom long ago, Im baffled how the citizens still are not aware about whats going on in the American government.
The Bankers, the Rothschild and Rockefeller family, own the united states and decide what happens, listen to what Aaron Russo said, everything he said is true, it has all come to pass, and now they nearly have what they want.
Many whistleblowers have exposed the same information and died for it, died for telling the American citizens the truth about the government, and people still think these are conspiracies, those people died for nothing and it is a disgrace, it’s sad.
The rich elite are just loving this, no one believes that this situation is real and that there is a cabal in power, that people believe the world works like the elite presents to them to them through TV and Media.
As long as the people dont wake up to whats going on, they can never take back their country, and freedom like the original founding fathers intended, they have long been taking over by the banking cartel and elite families.
Every president does what they want.
Like Jordan Maxwell said: “The people can only Elect a president, they cannot Select anyone, the elite bankers Select who runs, and the people merely Elect someone among those preselected, both sides work for the same elite, its a big theather to make the people believe there is a democracy, there is no democracy, it is a communist system worse than china disguised as democracy, that is the brilliance of it.”
4 Likes
Couldn’t we find a lot of examples that run counter to this? Not trying to take away the bigger picture of what you’re saying with this comment. But it would seem as if laws are often overturned that would lead to an increase in liberty. Prohibition and legalized marijuana use come to mind but I’m sure we could come up with a ton. Current travel bans to countries will be overturned one would think at some point. To me that would represent liberty lost and then gained again.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. Do you think I’m saying a ruling could only be made using the text of the Constitution?
I’m just saying the Constitution clearly outlines the powers of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights make even more clear some things from which the Federal Government is prohibited.
I sincerely appreciate all the replies. Thank you.
She is within her rights on a broad scale. Just because you have a right doesn’t mean you need to use it. I don’t know how Rhode Island works, but, I would think they have a local Senate with area / county / districts being represented. Did she consult them? ask for a vote to declare martial law on New Yorkers? I have strong feelings on martial law because I have seen it first hand.
Yes, I agree with you. I have done a lot of CQB training around the US and sheriffs in southern states have a tremendous amount of power. The sheriff is the highest ranking LEO in the county, he basically trumps my fed badge. I have been involved in arresting three sheriffs for drug trafficking. Each time, we had to have the Governor, DOJ ,federal marshals, and the medical examiner in the loop ( in a lot of counties, only the Governor and the medical examiner can sign a warrant against a sheriff.)
The example I used was a sheriff in a rural mountainous county who banned people from a certain city from travelling to their cabins / second homes. Not weekend campers but actual property owners, so, I want to take my aging parents from a large city where the risk is high, to, my remote cabin, where the risk is low. The sheriff says, no way. Basically, I own your property now and you do not, because, I don’t care how “legal” it is, the stark fact fact remains, you seized it, and I don’t have my property anymore.
Property taxes come around in that county and I bet I would “own” it again.
On a personal note: a person I served with in AF called me and told me about this. His wife is undergoing some type of chemotherapy. She is very high risk. He owns a cabin in that county and wanted to take his wife there for safety, until this shit directive was issued. Now, he cannot legally. He is former SF and a good one, the rest the conversation is not appropriate for here.
I get sick of fighting auto correct on my phone. Unless Patrick Swayze worked at the “Double Douche,” which would have been an interesting yet gross movie.
1 Like
Yes, we could, especially if we are using your examples. I am wary of stop gap measures in the law primarily because of the Second Amendment. Nation wide, I believe there are around 60 thousand gun laws. Very few of those are ever changed and the freedoms restored. But, in all honesty, I am biased on this this subject.
This is also going on in Dare County, NC where the Outer Banks beaches are. They’ve declared a state of emergency there and will not let non full-time residents go to their houses. My Dad owns a house there that he spends a couple of months at a year, but is not a full-time resident. I think it’s absolute horse shit that he can’t get there if he wants to. As you said, I’m sure when it’s tax time again there won’t be breaks.
He is a property owner N.C, he pays the mortgage and the taxes. His property, not matter, how your sugar coat it, has been seized. And, I am no rookie at this either, having seized numerous properties and personal items (vehicles, boats, guns, ect) through drug and other criminal investigations. You’re father is not a convicted criminal but his property was still seized. I need to calm down.
" Forfeiture laws are intended to punish the defendant, reduce profits from – and thereby deter – criminal activity, and produce revenue for law enforcement agencies. In addition to federal forfeiture laws, most states have laws that permit state agencies to seize property gained or used in criminal activity".
1 Like
Exactly this… In NSW (you’re Australian, I assume you’ll know what I’m talking about) police are being sued for conducting unlawful searches and/or infringing upon civil liberties. Getting angry whilst being arrested and fighting back is a surefire way to land up in prison for assaulting an officer of the law/resisting arrest and/or getting hurt.
S8E8 douche and turd, one of my favourite shows.
They didn’t, it was a LITERAL douche and turd sandwich… they did this again in S19 with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Hillary was the sandwich, Mr Garrison was the douche.
This is an infringement of human rights? Most first world, secular countries don’t allow citizens to purchase guns on the basis of “self defence” regardless. With this alone you could stipulate just about… every other developed nation aside from America fragrantly violates human rights. Thinking of owning a firearm as “right” rather than “privilege” is a commodity practically sole to America.
I agree with you however regarding the slow dismantling of democracy, abiding by the constitution no longer appears to be a priority for politicians… America’s founding fathers would be rolling in their graves. I don’t believe however that state authorities trying to enforce social distancing is an example of infringing upon human rights. Extreme times call for extreme measures.
New Yorkers aren’t being “discriminated against”, they’re the epicentre for the covid-19 outbreak. Containing the spread is pivotal to avoid excess exponential growth. The healthcare system is already under significant burden; politicians and members of law enforcement will do what they can to avoid further infection within the public. This is a highly infectious disease (basal reproduction number about 2x that of the flu) with a long latency period (up to 14 days)… allowing people to breach quarantine for whatever reason has potentially serious ramifications down the line. The president is however discriminating against New Yorkers by refusing to provide necessary ventilators to treat those affected, probably because the governor isn’t “treating him” the right way by not being brazenly loyal/sacrificing his integrity.
South Korea initially had covid-19 under wraps… until one patient in isolation (patient 31) breached quarantine protocol… patient 31 is now supposedly responsible for “63.5 percent” of all cases (dated March 7 2020). As per you’re described scenario, lets hypothetically stipulate you have a sick mother in NYC. You drive out to see her, park your car and walk to her apartment/house. In this scenario as you perhaps believe total lockdown is overkill, others are walking around too. Now we have three potential ways this could go horribly wrong.
- You’ve got covid-19 but are asymptomatic, you’re mother has something else
- Someone around you has covid-19
- You’re mother has covid-19 hence why she’s sick
Scenario 1: you talk up to her apartment, touching your car door to shut it, walking nearby pedestrians, perhaps you touch numerous surfaces during the walk to your mother. You potentially infect a few pedestrians walking by/being near whatever surfaces you’ve touched AND you’ve potentially infected you’re mother… Perhaps a few die because you’ve decided to go out, spread within the community is greatly enhanced down the line via exponential replication.
Scenario 2: Someone around you whilst walking to your mother infects you with the disease, you potentially infect your mother (viral particles on your clothes regardless of whether you are actually contagious or not at the time) and numerous others. Potentially leading to numerous deaths and enhancing spread within the community.
Scenario 3: You go see you’re mom, perhaps you wear one of the surgical masks that medical professionals so desperately need… but aerosols can make it through the mask, you’ve touched numerous surfaces and perhaps wiped you’re face on you’re way out etc… now you’re contagious and you potentially infect numerous when going grocery shopping/walking around. Perhaps many die
Visiting your loved ones vs contributing to potentially hundreds of thousands… if not millions of deaths down the line. It’s understandable why law enforcement may wish to take extreme measures to enforce people fucking stay at home. In Australia we still have PLENTY of people going out, not abiding to rules regarding social distancing. The government is understandably getting fed up as cases exponentially rise. I’m almost ALWAYS anti authoritarian, I’m pro choice in relation to personal rights. I’m pro-choice, pro drug legalisation/decriminalisation, pro LGBTQI rights. I’m even pro guns (to an extent) so long as background checks, gun safes are mandated and restrictions are imposed upon certain highly lethal firearms. However I believe acutely authoritative measures are justified when we have a scenario wherein a large portion of the populace has the potential to be wiped out, yet an equally large portion of the populace refuses to abide by quarantine protocol.
If anything I’d stipulate the dismantling of democracy within the US stems from Donald Trump… refusing to provide aid to states who don’t “treat him right”, ignoring experts and stating NY doesn’t need extra ventilators etc… There are countless examples of actions stemming from the president of which I believe violate the constitution. I firmly, firmly believe Donald Trump is chipping away at the foundations of constitutional democracy.
What does this have to do with the conversation at stake. I’m not sure what constitutes as a “felony drug/arrest warrant”, but where I live (edit: use) of a singular marijuana cigarette can be considered a “felony” worthy of prison time. Personally, I don’t believe arresting/prosecuting those using drugs does any good… even drug busts statistically don’t make the slightest dent regarding street supply. In NSW police got involved with the cannabis trade in Nimbin and many turned to methamphetamine in response… as a response the town is far worse off than what it was prior. I know a few who have had to deal with the legal system/law enforcement for otherwise trivial, victimless crimes… hence why this issue bothers me so much. I’m firmly against law enforcement policing/prosecuting users… go after the large scale suppliers, but even this doesn’t appear to lessen public availability… perhaps a different approach should be taken if our current one has been failing for decades (and data/statistics stemming empirically back a harm reductionist approach). I’m sure we have dramatically differing opinions on this subject though, hence I’ll drop it from here instead of derailing this thread and starting a heated debate.
Should be noted the constitution was written in like… 1787… hundreds of years have passed, perhaps certain elements of the constitution no longer relate to modern society. Though the constitution can be amended (and has been like… twenty something times).
Your arguing politicians/state law enforcement are breaching civil liberties, acquiring too much power… but within modern society, this (covid-19) is a scenario entirely foreign to humanity. Taking necessary precautions for a few months regardless of a right to own a gun, right to go out in the open etc beats 1-4% of the population dying. These are temporary measures, if the United States deteriorates into full scale authoritarianism there will likely be significant public pushback. I believe the “right to bear arms” pertains to a civilians right to own a gun on the off chance the government in power becomes tyrannical.
Regarding property seizure, I’m not educated at all regarding property law. I’d ASSUME the seizure is temporary to avoid citizens travelling to and from numerous properties of which they might own at leisure, potentially infecting others (buying gas, making pit-stops etc)
Herd immunity is something that is being discussed a lot but what we are seeing now is a perfect example of herd mentality. It appears that many many people have a desire to be controlled and to then control others.
1 Like
It isn’t a desire to be controlled… If a large portion of the populace is still dim witted enough to believe coronavirus is a hoax, or that it’s “just the flu” then measures need to be implimented to deter said demographic from infecting a large majority of the popualce and potentially killing millions
And what if the measures we are taking are worse than the problem in the long run? WhT if there were other ways to go about it? Quarantine elderly and at risk without shutting the world off?
No, with a long latency period you’ve got people who are asymptomatic for up to 14 days, said person can spread covid-19 for many days unaware that they’re sick
Furthermore, there are a number of frightening case reports now pertaining to young, otherwise healthy people becoming critically ill and dying.
The problem here stems from a large portion of the populace believing they know better than virologists/MD’s when virologists and medical professionals themselves don’t even know everything about this virus.
There is no hidden government agenda here, it’s trying to keep the populace safe, reducing burden on the healthcare system and potentially reducing economic destruction (though this wouldn’t be prioritised over human life)
Keeping society open to certain demographics would exponentially increase the spread. Should be noted people only tend to die like 2-3 weeks after becoming symptomatic… It’s possible, probable even that death rates will dramatically shoot up over the next month
2 Likes
The number of frightening cases with young people is statiscally close enough to zero to be non relevant. The fatality rate has been grossly over estimated. It’s a virus. Not a good one especially for elderly and immuno compromised , it needs to be taken seriously but there are epidemiologists who prescribe to herd immunity theory.
To pretend that the WHO is apolitical is ridiculous. First thing that should have been done was a lockdown of China.
1 Like
As someone who’s on the front lines of this I take it seriously however some of the measures that are being practiced are laughable with no basis in common sense.
1 Like
Some places have laws punishing those that fail to obey mandatory evacuation orders. That’s a worse violation of property rights, since evacuation orders require you to leave your property. Prohibiting one from returning to or traveling to his property likely involves only preventing your traveling on government-owned roads.
I’m with you in opposing the spirit of these restrictions.
Martial law has not been declared anywhere in the U.S. at this time or over Coronavirus.
The issues you bring up are to be expected in a country that has allowed(that is, voted for the people causing the issues)/begged for increased governmental power.
That’s how it should be, other than a fed badge existing.
How do you know the fatality rate is overestimated… This is a base assumption with little merit.
Same goes for death rates in relation to the young, we don’t know… This is early days… Given time to death is 18.5 days on average we could be looking at a CFR of like 4%… This isn’t the god damn flu, this is far deadlier.
Say the death rate for the young is 0.2%, that’s still deadlier than the flu… And will add up to quite a lot of young people dying.
We can agree to disagree here
What do you mean by front lines? Are you an MD? Law enforcement? Firefighter?
If numerous countries ASIDE from China can successfully impliment lockdowns, so can the US/Australia… Or they should be able to
In certain crime ridden/poverty stricken regions it might be difficult (both Aus and the US)
Testing has been minimal. Very few people are actually being tested. With how contagious it is we know many many more people have acquired it and been a symptomatic or symptoms minor enough that they weren’t tested. We are basing a fatality rate off of a small number of confirmed cases. Look at Germany’s fatality rate.
You’re right this isn’t the flu. It also isn’t the end of the world.
Yes ff/paramedic
2 Likes