Because he has not been authorized
Hahaha, that’s just an attempt at a little taste of your own medicine. Here:
Although the Bill of Rights goes ‘Congress shall make no law…’, many are of the view that those fundamental, inalienable human rights are also not to be alienated by the states. The Supreme Court has switched on this before
And then of course there’s always the simple ‘in what way DOES he have the authority, har har har’ which actually makes a bit of sense on a topic like authority
I’m not a big lawyer but I will still give my (not very informed) opinion - the country was founded on a philosophy that is antithetical to the degree of authority being discussed. The Federal government wasn’t supposed to have the authority to dictate what the states did and didn’t have the authority to do either tho, so that’s why it’s messy
1 Like
The Court has also ruled that free exercise is up for interpretation. Posing a health risk that goes beyond the worshipers would seem to be cause for an exception. Of course, if these places of worship that want to remain active had common sense as well as a sense of decency and compassion, this wouldn’t be an issue. I believe one role of government is to protect citizens from idiots and sometimes to protect idiots from themselves.
There are several reasons going around. Some believe that closing would make god angry and worsen the coronavirus (or that divine intervention is what will stop the virus, and therefore they need to attend), some believe that their members will be protected, several other reasons I can’t think of ATM, but I suspect the largest reason is a huge drop in donations when the doors close.
I can’t really blame someone for wanting to protect their income. It seems very human to want that. Unfortunately, I think it will turn out badly if people continue to attend (additionally, the members of a church are generally older).
You should have changed “may” to “are” and ended at “service.” It is wrong, period.
He probably does. If a church has a roof that could collapse at any moment, could the building inspector order it closed?
I would argue it’s more alarming some places of worship are making sane believers look like morons. Even the Pope isn’t celebrating mass with a full church.
Greed feeds on stupidity.
I am alarmed by neither, they are both discomforting
I think that you have plenty of believers who recognize the health risks and stay home.
But the idea that in 21st century America you have some believers, I would assume a minority, who think that God will protect them or that virus was sent by Him to punish humanity is ridiculous. It’s also immoral of any preacher, priest, imam, whatever, to actually hold services for a large group of people. Stream it over the internet.
1 Like
Breastfeeding makes a huge difference with regards to that. But either way, that is the first baby I have heard of dying from this and China reports no children under something like 15 years old dying. The statistics show that children are not a high risk group for this disease, fortunately.
Yeah, I agree. Bunches of mosques around here were quick (Friday the 13th) to shutdown the Friday prayers, and only a little slower to shutdown other stuff
I don’t think those are ridiculous, but the idea that a living human knows who will be protected is
In other words, me and my mosque might not make it. People should realize the same of themselves and their groups
Using the word ‘any’ seems too strong, but streaming of religious services should increase imo
1 Like
Constitutional rights, lol. Like anyone cares about those things anymore.
1 Like
The problem, as I see it, is not the temporary violation of some rights, it’s that we fear those violations will set precedent and become permanent policy.
Maybe there needs to be a time limit to these policies, and they must be voted on and reapproved every 6 months to remain in place.
Curiously, under what conditions (if any) would you find a declaration of martial law acceptable?
What rights have been suspended or violated? Going to bars or clubs or movie theaters? They operate under license and if they pose a health risk they can be closed. Churches? No one said you can’t worship whatever god you worship. Even churches, the physical buildings, have to follow safety codes.
I think OP is more concerned about police and soldiers going door to door to find out where you’ve been or where you are from. Or stopping cars because of the license plate and telling the occupants they have to go back where they came from.
1 Like
I think the violation itself is a problem, but the later is probably more worrisome.
Once power is obtained has it ever been given back without violence? How many times has the Patriot Act been reauthorized, for example?
An existential threat, WWIII, Civil War Part II, maybe a few other things.
Right to a speedy trial is a big issue right now, for example. Lot of folks can argue that has been violated as the courts (at least in my area) have been shut down for weeks.
The current stay home executive order in Maryland is punishable by a $5k fine/year of jail time while violating the first amendment in at least two ways.
How can the govt help slow/stop the spread of a pandemic if a large minority of the population outright disregards all voluntary actions meant to help? These actions put millions of Americans in direct danger.
Do you think the government has the obligation to step in and protect citizens from other citizens actions? Or do you think govt doesn’t have a role here?
What would you like to see happen?
I can see being concerned about that. Is it “legal” by virtue of being an executive order or is it legal because there is an actual law already in place?
I know in Italy they had similar consequences but the belief is that after things settle down those charges will all get dropped.
I would bet there will be some legal challenges coming from people who have been arrested or fined.
Nothing. Some people are stupid. Some people put others at risk. It happens all of the time. You can’t legislate away stupidity or selfishness and executive offices lack the authority to order people to stay home as far as I can tell. I mean, the man in charge of the executive branch is a very selfish person. I certainly would not want him issuing EOs that try to stop stupidity.
The only thing they can do is take the time to modify the US Constitution to provide government the necessary authority to approve stay home orders in times of a pandemic. That’s how our system is designed, but we never actually follow it. We just bend the rules and ask for forgiveness (lawsuits). Most people could care less that the first is clearly being violated because, in this case, COVID19 could directly hurt them. Fear > freedom it seems. My thoughts are in the minority, I get that. It is what it is.
We talk about rights quite a bit in this country, but historically we bend when things get rough. This whole conversation is irrelevant when viewed through that lens if we’re being honest.
It depends. Yes if the citizens have given the government the authority to do so and the measures they take do not violate our codified rights. Otherwise, no. I think individuals need to take responsibility for their own health/safety. No one ever likes that answer, but that’s how freedom works.
Note, I’m referring specifically to what the government(s) should/should not be able to do. If a grocery store wants to require customers wear N95 masks to shop, fine.
2 Likes
Might depend on how we define power and maybe level of violence but I think laws are often overturned without violence. It was long illegal where I live to purchase alcohol on Sundays and now we can. We could probably come up with a lot of examples, but I would certainly agree it makes it possible to not be returned.
Shouldn’t have ever happened. But it ain’t going anywhere. We love the idea of spending on “defense” and will twist that defense part as often as we need. And those bills are laden with pork because who wants to say they voted against the safety of America?
1 Like