Beer Virus V

[T.Lex]

The mass non-compliance, combined with the court battles that have largely concluded that governors, in particular, have overstepped statutory authority and constitutional limits support the assertion that the government actions with respect to lockdowns do, in fact, represent restriction of essential liberties.

I'm sorry, speaking of hyperbole, is there an Indiana case that determined the governor overstepped his authority or constitutional powers? (Frankly, the "largely concluded" part is wrong, too, but I won't belabor that point).

And mass non-compliance is indicative of essential liberties? Then going 8 miles over the speed limit is an essential liberty?

Do you concede any authority for government to restrict liberty, including that which is "essential," in an emergency? Or do you dispute that the pandemic is an emergency? Or something else? (I'm not trying to box you in, just trying to figure out what you're saying.)

 

[BugI02]

That's not the answer to the question though. Your question was, paraphrasing, what freedom is lost by forcing restaurants to shut down half their capacity? I think the answer is self evident. So I think you already know the answer to THAT question.

So the answer you gave to the wrong question makes me suspect that the question of harm doesn't matter. And that's the problem with policy makers. They're not focused on the harm caused by their solutions. It looks to me like they just want to impose anything to avoid political blame for not doing something.

/thread(s)

 

[printcraft]

See, the rebels had a choice!!

 

[BugI02]

Oh no. I'm told by INGO that if I say something I have to provide ample citations from approved sources.

Only to the extent that a poster does or does not require the same from other members

 

[chipbennett]

I'm sorry, speaking of hyperbole, is there an Indiana case that determined the governor overstepped his authority or constitutional powers? (Frankly, the "largely concluded" part is wrong, too, but I won't belabor that point).

I didn't realize that we were speaking only of Indiana. On the balance of court cases across the country, I stand by "largely concluded" that government - governors, in particular - have overstepped their bounds.

And mass non-compliance is indicative of essential liberties? Then going 8 miles over the speed limit is an essential liberty?

Driving is not a constitutionally enumerated right or otherwise generally considered to be a natural right. Regardless, nowhere did I state that everything subject to mass non-compliance demonstrates or even implies the involvement of an essential liberty. Why is this discussion such a logical fallacy minefield?

For a more germane example: how about the mass non-compliance with respect to attending church services, family gatherings, or other instances of exercising the right of assembly - you know, activities that actually involve natural rights and essential liberties?

Do you concede any authority for government to restrict liberty, including that which is "essential," in an emergency? Or do you dispute that the pandemic is an emergency? Or something else? (I'm not trying to box you in, just trying to figure out what you're saying.)

This conveniently shifts the goalposts, yet also implicitly concedes the point that we are discussing government restriction of essential liberties.

I suggested a starting point for the discussion to determine whether government should have the authority to restrict essential liberties: strict scrutiny. One: why would the premise of your question assume that I would not concede any such government authority when I already posed a starting point to determine whether such government action would be justified. And two: do you agree that strict scrutiny is a reasonable starting point for that discussion?

 

[ditcherman]

Why should you even need a 'business license' from the government in the first place?

Now we're gettin' somewhere boys!

Thats a different discussion.

Not really, it's all the same, boiled down.

Nobody willingly gets a license for activity from the government.

Happens all the time, we all have our permission slips.

 

[T.Lex]

Driving is not a constitutionally enumerated right or otherwise generally considered to be a natural right.

Neither are restaurants.

For a more germane example: how about the mass non-compliance with respect to attending church services, family gatherings, or other instances of exercising the right of assembly - you know, activities that actually involve natural rights and essential liberties?

Those liberties have not been "lost" and not even suspended. Limits have been set to avoid making a public health emergency worse.

Direct me to where you can't do those things.

This conveniently shifts the goalposts, yet also implicitly concedes the point that we are discussing government restriction of essential liberties.

No, I'm trying to understand your position. We are discussing essential liberties. Do you concede that .gov has the authority to act for the greater good in the case of an emergency?

I suggested a starting point for the discussion to determine whether government should have the authority to restrict essential liberties: strict scrutiny.

Couple things - first, I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum for a full blown principles of constitutional law discussion.

Second, though, "strict scrutiny" starts with the position that .gov DOES have the authority to limit those essential freedoms. Just that any .gov effort to do so will be scrutinized strictly (because that's in the name).

One: why would the premise of your question assume that I would not concede any such government authority when I already posed a starting point to determine whether such government action would be justified. And two: do you agree that strict scrutiny is a reasonable starting point for that discussion?

Again, it didn't seem clear to me that you were conceding that - that's why I asked.

In an emergency situation, it seems to me that a rational basis is more appropriate. Otherwise, there is the risk that the .gov action that was otherwise reasonable at the time might be considered unreasonable based on later information.

In an emergency, the important thing is to end the emergency. Anything rational to do so is defensible.

 

[ghitch75]

went to the base this morning to finish a job i started.......gates where locked no one in the parking lot.....my contact called and said someone in the building got the virus so they shut it down.

the ghost busters are cleaning it and then we are suppose to be able to go back after 6am in the morning.


asked if a had contact with anyone in there and me and my help hadn't so we are good to go.....i guess...

 

[T.Lex]

Now for some hyperbole-avoiding content.

Looking at the current numbers, we remain at a 144 days-to-double for deaths. It was as high as 145 and dropped to 143 briefly. If we use 144 +/- 1 day, then we have been in an exponential growth phase for deaths since approximately November 9. Every day since then has been 143-145.

And it looks like today will continue that pattern.

Again, that really isn't a call to action of any sort. It just described the current situation.

Well, I spoke a bit too soon - based on today's preliminary numbers, we're down to 142 days-to-double. (The numbers today look pretty bad.)

I went back and looked at that early July timeframe. I think the current exponentiality (not sure if actual word) is partly reflective of the fact that we were at the very end of the restrictions at that point. The daily deaths were as low as they have been through this, although there is another lull in the late September/early October timeframe. We probably won't be able to sustain the current death rate that would keep us at an exponential curve for very long.

So that's kinda good.

Unless we do hit those kinds of numbers. Then that would be really bad.

 

[chipbennett]

Neither are restaurants.

Owning a business is, indeed, part and parcel of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness - just the same as keeping and bearing arms is part and parcel of the right to life.

Those liberties have not been "lost" and not even suspended. Limits have been set to avoid making a public health emergency worse.

Direct me to where you can't do those things.

Do you really need me to link you to instances where state governments have attempted to shut down church services? Governors in Kentucky and California rather infamously attempted to do so. Even in Indiana, in-person church services were shut down for a period. In Nevada, church services of 25+ persons were shut down simultaneously with casinos and other venues with 25+ persons being allowed to continue. Do I need to go on?

No, I'm trying to understand your position. We are discussing essential liberties. Do you concede that .gov has the authority to act for the greater good in the case of an emergency?

It depends on the nature of the emergency. Not all emergencies are created equal.

Couple things - first, I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum for a full blown principles of constitutional law discussion.

To the contrary, this issue seems to me to be the most appropriate opportunity for such a discussion.

Second, though, "strict scrutiny" starts with the position that .gov DOES have the authority to limit those essential freedoms. Just that any .gov effort to do so will be scrutinized strictly (because that's in the name).

Again, it didn't seem clear to me that you were conceding that - that's why I asked.

Then to be perfectly clear, I am conceding the general point, for the purposes of discussion. I do not concede on where the line is, or the basis or rationalization for exercising that authority.

In an emergency situation, it seems to me that a rational basis is more appropriate. Otherwise, there is the risk that the .gov action that was otherwise reasonable at the time might be considered unreasonable based on later information.

Again, not all emergencies are created equally. The broader the scope of the emergency, the more limited the government action should be, and the stricter the scrutiny regarding the justification of that action, when constitutionally protected rights and other essential liberties are being infringed.

A localized chemical hazard is one thing. A declared statewide emergency covering every square inch of the state and every resident of the state, for an indeterminate duration, is something else altogether.

In an emergency, the important thing is to end the emergency. Anything rational to do so is defensible.

Rational basis for confiscating firearms in an emergency?
Rational basis for seizing persons or property in an emergency?
Rational basis for entry and search of private property in an emergency?
Rational basis for suspending elections in an emergency?
Rational basis for suspension of due process in an emergency?

Why, there's no danger in that line of thinking, at all...

 

[IndyBeerman]

The issue of harm is exactly why I answered the question (both of them). INGO may not like it, but there is no freedom lost by forcing restaurants to shut down to half their capacity. That wasn't freedom to begin with. That capacity was a governmental decision. We can dislike the evolution of government that led to it, but it doesn't change the current reality.

The harm to the public by having people gathered together is real and quantifiable. Mostly because of a-/pre-symptomatic spreaders, and - unfortunately - people who know they are positive and are not self-isolating or having their family members isolate.
.

Yes there is a freedom lost, the ability to own a business and earn money. Something about this is mentioned in one of our founding documents, something along the lines of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", it's sort of a main line in the Declaration of Independence.

By limiting the amount of customers in a establishment, or forcing a shut down of said business goes directly against one of the very reason we fought to gain our independence.

And shouldn't it rest upon the individual to choose the risk to their health by visiting that establishment?



How would you feel if you owned Lock's are Us, and the Local, State or Federal government declared that life is good and full of Harmony and Locks are no longer needed and you had to close your shop because they deemed your business no longer needed, regardless of fact that people still felt the need to keep their valuables and homes under lock and key to protect them?

Everything is affected along the line, workers, management, owners, land and building owners/leasers, equipment and food suppliers, utility suppliers, maintenance companies, ect, ect. It's a trickle down list that goes on and on.

 

[T.Lex]

Rational basis for confiscating firearms in an emergency?
Rational basis for seizing persons or property in an emergency?
Rational basis for entry and search of private property in an emergency?
Rational basis for suspending elections in an emergency?
Rational basis for suspension of due process in an emergency?

Why, there's no danger in that line of thinking, at all...

Each of those has been justified at one time or another in our history (and some arguably worse). Except maybe the elections one. I'm not sure about that on any large scale. Well, we shifted our primary this year, but I don't know whether you would count that.

My point is that emergencies are what they are, and very difficult to define. That's why it is important to elect people who are - my words - of a responsible disposition to exercise that authority.

Which leads back to my point - vigilance. We need to be vigilant about making sure the "over-"reach doesn't extend beyond what is necessary. Fortunately, we do have the power of the ballot box (Trump's protestations notwithstanding) to un-elect leaders that abuse the power.

 

[Bigtanker]

Which leads back to my point - vigilance. We need to be vigilant about making sure the "over-"reach doesn't extend beyond what is necessary. Fortunately, we do have the power of the ballot box (Trump's protestations notwithstanding) to un-elect leaders that abuse the power.

Who decides what is necessary then?

 

[foszoe]

Who decides what is necessary then?

hopefully the voice of the people through their legislative branch to check what the executive can do. Since no legislation is ever perfect I would imagine it would take an iterative process as we go through emergencies to say hey we want to change this scope of Authority or a plan that this specific situation. It could be a lot like writing switching orders on high voltage line there's always a chance that somebody gets it wrong and it can be life or death

 

[BugI02]

hopefully the voice of the people through their legislative branch to check what the executive can do. Since no legislation is ever perfect I would imagine it would take an iterative process as we go through emergencies to say hey we want to change this scope of Authority or a plan that this specific situation. It could be a lot like writing switching orders on high voltage line there's always a chance that somebody gets it wrong and it can be life or death

The best circuit breakers I have seen on a governor's overreach are the states with a requirement that after 28 days of 'emergency' the governor has to take his measures before the legislature for approval. This particular 'emergency' has illuminated a need to make sure that stricture has to be met even if the legislature has to meet virtually

 

[foszoe]

The best circuit breakers I have seen on a governor's overreach are the states with a requirement that after 28 days of 'emergency' the governor has to take his measures before the legislature for approval. This particular 'emergency' has illuminated a need to make sure that stricture has to be met even if the legislature has to meet virtually

Yeah I like that idea and I'm not sure but I think in Indiana our problem is that the governor has the power to call the legislator in the in the session I don't know if they can call themselves into section

 

[Crash7]

Yeah I like that idea and I'm not sure but I think in Indiana our problem is that the governor has the power to call the legislator in the in the session I don't know if they can call themselves into section

Thus, “empire”.

I fled Illanoy last summer. IL does actually have a 30 day limit to emergency powers. Sure hasn’t stopped the emperor there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nonobaddog]

Government overreach is usually accomplished in nibbles. It is actually rare when one instance of overreach becomes significant compared to other issues during an election.
Maybe the shutdown overreach will change that but I doubt it.

 

[JCSR]

This thread...............

 

[nonobaddog]

This thread...............

View attachment 93736

Maybe if they just pull ahead a little bit and turn left back onto the tracks.