Reply With Quote
How can you ban people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater without violating the 1st Amendment?
The bill of rights contains no absolute rights, despite what many think. "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose"
How can you ban public gatherings sans martial law without violating the 1st Amendment?
How can you ban people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater without violating the 1st Amendment?
The bill of rights contains no absolute rights, despite what many think. "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose"
on education? you mean the HS i went to where the edge of technology that was being pushed at the time was to learn how to type? gtfo! HYPERBOLE is all you got dip .
i would lay odds that my health is leaps and bounds above yours. i eat healthy, i take multivitamins, drink plenty of water, and the only thing remotely bad that i do is smoke bud. big whoop!
i truly do hope people like yourself ing perish and perish soon! those just like you vy!
something you can't do on your best day.
you progressive weak s are nothing but balls of hyperbole. either way it's not hyperbole when i say you've made posts here claiming you minors while also day dreaming about your aunt's pussy.In my defense, Koriwhats post is 90% i wish you die, celebrating muzzies death, democrats that and this that i've habitually skipped his post.
Thats my bad though
seriously dude, calm the down already.
Central Texas distillery starts producing hand sanitizer to tackle COVID-19 pandemic
The hand sanitizer is 80% alcohol and produced according to World Health Organization (WHO) and FDA standards.
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/he...e-fb4a329045e9
s to the yeah. Just dont' let the normal mouth breathers try to eat it...
As for what the state is, or is not doing, we have another instance of "conservative" bull being bad policy.
https://www.texasobserver.org/how-th...local-control/How The Coronavirus Pandemic Exposed Abbott’s Hypocrisy On Local Control
After leaving cities and counties to handle coronavirus on their own, state intervention could be too little, too late.
Governor Greg Abbott’s office told reporters this week that cities and counties “have done a very good job of doing what is right for their municipalities” during the COVID-19 pandemic, insisting that county and city leaders “can make the right decision that is best for their community,” because that “is the way the structure works” here.
“Texas is so diverse that what is right in Houston and Harris County and Dallas and San Antonio may not be the best approach in Amarillo,” Abbott spokesman John Wittman told the Texas Tribune. “These cities and counties are following the proper protocol and guidance that they are receiving from their local health departments.”
On Thursday, the governor finally took statewide action, issuing an executive order that temporarily banned gatherings of 10 or more, prohibits dine-in services at restaurants and bars, stopped visitation to nursing homes and retirement facilities, and closed schools and gyms through April 3 (he noted that it could be extended). This followed media reports criticizing the governor’s slow action—including shaming from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
At a press conference announcing the executive order Thursday, Abbott emphasized once again that deferring to cities and counties in the face of disasters has worked in Texas. The order didn’t stem from a change of heart, he indicated, but was prompted by the size and scope of coronavirus.
Stupid Trump party is literally going to get people killed.
They have to denature it immediately.
Which means putting various compounds that make it taste like . (very bitter)
But I did learn something. I had no idea it was ethanol was the alcohol in hand sanitizer. Just automatically assumed it was isopropyl. But ethanol makes sense because it is so easy to make.
federal government likely wouldnt be able to impose a nationwide quarantine (though they can regulate interstate commerce, so they can prevent travel from state to state if they have grounds)... but state's can implement quarantines because they have "police powers" to protect health, safety, welfare of their people
same way somebody mentally ill can be involuntarily committed even if they haven't done anything wrong yet
Balancing test. Compelling state reason.
yeah probably strict scrutiny
show the measure is necessary to further a compelling state interest. i had to brush up on bar material in the last year so i'm fresh with this
not sure if really this high, but I bet there are a ton of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infections. One can be lightly infected and have ones immune system keep it at bay I'm sure, just like the cold or flu.
Quarantine is one thing, but saying people cannot congregate is quite another. Saying "you can go places, but not with more than X number of people" seems counter to the 1st. RG's explanation dismissed with prejudice.
Cantwell vs Conn and clear and present danger?
There are exceptions to the 1st amendment when it comes to endangering the public (ie: yelling bomb in a crowded place). I don't particularly think this would be much different.
Of course there are exceptions. Saying that as a dismissal to the question doesn't answer the question. Is it an exception to prohibit the gathering of people who have not been proven to be infected?
Eg. Texas rules:
Authority. The executive commissioner is responsible for the general statewide administration of the control and prevention of communicable disease in the state. The commissioner may impose an area quarantine, if he or she has reasonable cause to believe that individuals or property in the area may be infected or contaminated with a communicable disease, for the period necessary to determine whether an outbreak of communicable disease has occurred. A health authority may impose a quarantine only within the boundaries of the health authority's jurisdiction. The department, or the local health department having jurisdiction over the location where an individual who is subject to supervision is found, may issue an order for the individual's temporary involuntary treatment, quarantine or isolation.
So that verbiage all seems to related to infected persons or areas around infected persons, not necessarily as a precaution to all people who may become infected or who the state has not bothered to test (and has stated more than once that testing isn't needed without symptoms).
Now granted, I support the measures 100%. I just have the legal question.
"... The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.[14]
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peacefu.../us.php#_ftn13
You'd have to prove that people who the government refuses to test are considered immediate threats to public safety.
Nope.
https://www.necn.com/news/coronaviru...court/2248076/
I bet it gets squashed rather easily
Fascist cuckold hates capitalism.
I didn't dismiss the question, I pretty much addressed it head on. I don't think that's a question that has necessarily been tested in court, especially on the federal, but it does seem to fall within the range of situations where an exception would be valid and legal.
Not really, no. The government would have to present expert testimony/evidence that infections are possible even before symptoms manifest, which is really easy to prove in their case. As such, people that has not been tested or don't even believe they require testing might be spreading the disease.
What I would think justices would be interested in hearing is assurances that this exception is temporary in nature, etc.
You were doing so well when this Coronavirus hoax began. What happened? Did daddy Trump convince you that the hoax is real? Was it your Republican party? And now Greg Abbott? Team Red? I'm so disappointed in you smh.
but state wide polices blocking Tesla sales, municipal networks, local regulation of rideshare to protect BigDonor is best for all cities
ALL Repug pols and their voters to
Iceland, confirms that 50% of the positive victims are asymptomatic
So the stupid ing CDC rule blocking testing until symptoms CAUSES the spread, compounded by early rule that only CDC could test (and it had effectively zero ability to test in volume).
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
