Terrible strategy. If it is me, I am going to develop a terrible cough when they try to talk to me.
The list of “all other” is pretty small based on the order. Most organizations are either listed as an exception or the’re completely closed. Very few organizations fall within the 10 person gathering section of the EO.
^The only saving grace imo is the addition of sporting gatherings and events. Section III is basically general gatherings (social, leisure, & recreations), religious & spiritual, and sporting events. That’s small list compared to the “essential list” and even the exceptions.
I’m not so sure it is or I guess I should say I’m not convinced it’s a distinction without a difference. Rulings are usually pretty specific/narrow, right? To me, there’s a difference between say a drug law that applies to every person/organization and an EO that carves out a number of exception at least some of which have little to no justification for their exemption (liquor stores for example).
My point is that the rational test hasn’t been ruled on by SCOTUS when exemptions to the law/order exist. At least to my knowledge. It goes back to a Governor(s) deciding on their own that religious services are non-essential (which I think in and of itself is problematic) and then finding a way to ban services using the large gathering language as MD did.
I’m not sure how they’re not essential when the free exercise of religion is specifically protected in the very first amendment. Why would the founders protect something that is not necessary? They didn’t do that in any of the other amendments.
Religion also provides a lot of people with a number of benefits and for some, it is absolutely necessary for them to go to church as part of their religious practices.
I don’t think it would be that difficult to argue religion is essential and, again, I’m not a particularly religious person.
I agree that it is protected. IMO, they have the right to gather under the constitution, but that it is not a good idea for them to do it as individuals. But I thought this part of conversation was under the assumption that in a pandemic, those “rights” could be suspended? Maybe I am wrong on context?
That is basically TBs argument. I’m not saying he’s wrong either, but I think there’s more grey area than he does.
I think generally, that if a law is in conflict with the constitution (and it is pretty obviously in conflict) that it will most likely get overturned eventually (if people upset by it care enough to bring it to court).
Do we have examples of constitutional rights being suspended due to a big event? I am actually not sure. I guess we would not need an event, but is it clearly documented (would need to be a document at the same level as the constitution or in the constitution I believe).
As dumb as I think this WHOLE thing is, at least the states are shutting themselves down.
The new age version of the ol’ “shit your pants to get out of trouble” routine. Just be careful you don’t get charged with assaulting an officer haha.
Pretty hard to classify a cough as an assault. The burden of proof is on them to prove that it was purposeful. That is going to be pretty tough, unless you admit to it.
Now you might get charged (I can admit that), and end up in jail, but I wager you would end up winning your court case.
I suppose you can try and make that argument. I don’t think that flies when you read the text of the 1st, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
It seems pretty clear to me. A law that prohibits a person from going to church prohibits the free exercise of that religion even if it’s only temporary. But, as TB pointed out there have always been exceptions. Whether there should be exceptions is an entirely different and probably longer discussion, lol.
1 Like
Probably not now that it’s premeditated… 
I want to know what everyone thinks about all these places ordering people to wear masks. How is that legal?
I guess they got me if they find my T-nation account, and connect it to my person.
1 Like
It makes me feel totally safe. It’s like being back in Mom’s womb.
Edit: I haven’t yet been ordered to do it, so that’s a bit concerning, of course.
Are you just throwing em out there?
Otherwise, where do you think government has any capacity to enact/enforce any activity whatsoever?
I don’t follow? I’m curious how a state can compel a person to wear a specific piece of clothing.
1 Like
Can’t walk around with your cock out. It logically follows that you have to wear a mask.
I haven’t read all of your posts the last couple of days, but it seems like the ones I have, are questioning how govt can enforce this or that.
They can tell you how many people in a building (fire code), what speed and when to stop (traffic code), and how much funding you owe (tax code).
One can’t claim infringement of ‘liberty or pursuit of happiness’.
So how can they not tell you what clothing to wear?
1 Like
Mkay…
Yes, that’s generally the point - when there is an emergency of some sort. What you can’t do is deprive people of those rights if there isn’t a justifiable, “rational” reason - and anytime you single out someone, it calls into question that the reason is rational.
For example, if a governor said people couldn’t attend church for fear of groups gathering and spreading the virus, but said concerts were fine - there’s a presumption that churchgoers are being targeted, which is an impermissible violation of 1A.
Problem is, legally, governors have a very wide array of powers in an emergency situation, just as a president has on national security matters - which is coming as a surprise to a lot of Right-leaning folks, especially the ones who are (were formerly?) fans of “state’s rights”.
I don’t know how many right-leaning folks are fans of state’s rights. How many defer to the 2nd Amendment when gun rights are threatened?