Recommendations are fine, but given how wrong the people giving them have been, why would anyone take them seriously?
OT: COVID-19 news. Out of over 3000 positive tests in prison
- Thread starter dinglefritz
- Start date
- Status
No, it isn't constitutional, at all. Every one of these instances can bring a lawsuit,and, likely win.
But, it comes down to the grace of the people.
Each state has itself it's own situation,as you know. Wearing a mask in your neck of the woods is alarmist, yet unconstitutionally mandated elsewheres.
If the people are happy to comply, then everythings fine. Our 50 states are the experiment of democracy, included in that are things the people consider worthwhile that are unconstitutional.
This is how it's always been.
The will of the people lead the way, not the other way around.
I dont understand why it's hard for some to understand such a simple thing. We have laws on the books that we didn't have before, like legal pot.
But requiring people to do this or forbid them from doing that enters constitutional authority, things state governments don't delve into too much.
No, do you know the difference between a law and a constitutional right?
I'll wait.
Hint, I just gave an example
Well if you're talking about your example of "legal pot," you might want to pick a different subject. Marijuana was legalized in Colorado through a ballot initiative that specifically amended the state constitution - the legislature can only determine how to regulate it, not whether it should or should not be legal. Other states may have done it only through statute - I don't know.
So, you're saying, the will of the people overrides federal law? Ok, states are the experiment,check.
I'm trying to show you how things work.
A law doesn't mean it's constitutional,no matter who or how it's passed.
Now, even though pot isn't legal federally, it is in several states. But, again, all federal laws aren't necessarily constitutional.
By that I mean, women couldn't vote, that was federal law. It was unconstitutional.
Laws not put up against the constitution for consttutionality happen all the time.
A sherriff has the right to tell his or her governor to stuff it. A sherriff deals with the constitution more than states do in every day actions.
But, no, you can't legally say you have to wear a face mask. You can't tell certain businesses to be open or closed, as that enters into breaking the interstate commerce laws.
You can't create a healthcare system and mandate it. You can tax people, if they don't buy in, you can tax them, if they do, all is good.
It's not that hard to understand. You have laws that have to fit within the constitution.
Not all laws fit within the constitution.
The will of the people determines it's laws,within the framework of the constitution.
The people can give grace, or allow for some temporary unconstitutional actions by the state or feds, until its challenged in court, or not, and runs its course, if the people allow it to.
Learn to spell sheriff. The rest of your argument is more Articles of Confederation than Constitution. If you don’t like A county sheriff who openly defies an emergency order issued by a Governor can have a warrant sworn out for his/her arrest.
You need the follow-up graph:.
Staying inside for 8 more months after the blue portion of the top graph has been achieved.
And, what jurisdiction has the right and or ability to apply it and make it stick?
They'd have to catch him to issue it first, then they'd have to apply it.
Stepping outside of this puts that governor in a weak position, which only exposes more unconstitutionality if the sheriff is right, then the sheriff sues the state.
Let me ask you a question.
Who has more state and federal constitutuonality, a sheriff or the head of the police department in a states largest city?
Careful how you answer this.
Here's one of our rights being breached
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...urch-suing-northam-coronavirus-pastor-support
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...urch-suing-northam-coronavirus-pastor-support
Here's an example of what sherriffs can do.
When the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Brady Bill) was enacted in 1993, sheriffs in several state refused to enforce it and sought to strike it down as unconstitutional. Sheriffs Richard Mack of Graham County, AZ and Jay Printz of Ravalli County, MT filed a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court. And in a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled sheriffs weren’t required to enforce the law because it violated the Tenth Amendment.
They work within the constitution. When they're right, they're right, no governor, no president, no member of congress can change this, or, override a constitutionally correct action of a sheriff.
Since no one answered me, a sheriff has much greater clout than any appointed head,or chief of police.
A sheriff is elected, and his area is under his purview unless he relinquishes it, no matter how hollywood portrays them.
Here's how the writers and founders look at it, and it makes sense.
“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (Federalist 39)
Essentially, the founders new big government seeks bigger government by not addressing the people. And, when big government does address the people, it's usually done poorly, as it's a one law fits all.
The smaller the area, the more similar are its people, their desires are front and center, and the smallest of governments are to be the most powerful with this vewpoint, as it granulates better for its constituents.
A sheriff friend of mine once told me this, he also said, have you ever been to your congressmans house, or even know where they live?
Small government? He said, you knock on their door.
When the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Brady Bill) was enacted in 1993, sheriffs in several state refused to enforce it and sought to strike it down as unconstitutional. Sheriffs Richard Mack of Graham County, AZ and Jay Printz of Ravalli County, MT filed a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court. And in a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled sheriffs weren’t required to enforce the law because it violated the Tenth Amendment.
They work within the constitution. When they're right, they're right, no governor, no president, no member of congress can change this, or, override a constitutionally correct action of a sheriff.
Since no one answered me, a sheriff has much greater clout than any appointed head,or chief of police.
A sheriff is elected, and his area is under his purview unless he relinquishes it, no matter how hollywood portrays them.
Here's how the writers and founders look at it, and it makes sense.
“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (Federalist 39)
Essentially, the founders new big government seeks bigger government by not addressing the people. And, when big government does address the people, it's usually done poorly, as it's a one law fits all.
The smaller the area, the more similar are its people, their desires are front and center, and the smallest of governments are to be the most powerful with this vewpoint, as it granulates better for its constituents.
A sheriff friend of mine once told me this, he also said, have you ever been to your congressmans house, or even know where they live?
Small government? He said, you knock on their door.
Last edited:
The point here is that people quickly become more empathetic when it happens to their family.
Did these things actually happen? If so, where? Clearly a cop with too much time on his hands. Unless the people entered a park that was closed off.
Couldn't the same arguement be made on the other side? I mean it is pretty easy to sit in an ivory tower still collecting a paycheck and crying out for more closures and shutdowns in the name of self preservation, until it is your friends and family losing their livelihood and their future.
Yes they actually happened. The paddle boarder was in Michigan of all places. I don't recall where the couple was that was ticketed but I think that might have been Michigan as well. A surfer in California was literally arrested for surfiing during their lockdwon.
One of my favorite sayings that I've used with clients is "statistics don't mean a damned thing if you're the one in a thousand that gets the disease". At some point we have to ease back on the emotion of the situation and realize how much long term harm we're doing to families and our country by locking things down. Get things open. Practice social distancing as much as possible. Wash your hands. Use your hand sanitizer. WEAR A MASK DAMN IT BUT GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK! We HAVE to.
If they do, they're likely breaking the law.
And who are these state police? The highway patrol?
Some appointed leader that thinks they have constitutional power?
Sorry,I can't help you.
Like I said, the DOJ is watching them. Not us, them. But some think that's a bad thing, or don't understand our constitution.
There was a standoff on a reservation years ago, the fbi was called in, they sat and sat.
The res was in this sheriffs county,he watched the fbi getting nothing done, it had gone on for days.
Finally, the sheriff called in his deputies, fired multiple shots from multiple positions, and gave an ultimatum, as there were injured people who hadn't received helps.
The perps relented, not used to this, far different than the fbi.
It was his right to do so, even though reservations are to deal with the feds only.
Higher than any governor.
The res was in this sheriffs county,he watched the fbi getting nothing done, it had gone on for days.
Finally, the sheriff called in his deputies, fired multiple shots from multiple positions, and gave an ultimatum, as there were injured people who hadn't received helps.
The perps relented, not used to this, far different than the fbi.
It was his right to do so, even though reservations are to deal with the feds only.
Higher than any governor.
If we really want to kill hundreds and hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Americans, we should go ahead and send 'em back to work without widespread testing.
Without testing we will be flying completely blind. If you really want to line up a long line of willing virus hosts, the best way to do so is to send people back to work without ample testing. You already know this, so why are you changing your tune?
I'm betting these people were in parks or beaches that were closed due to the virus.
If there is a way to safely return to work, then we should return to work. But without testing, I'm not convinced that is possible right now.
If we really want to potentially kill millions of Americans, sending people back to work without testing is the quickest way to do so.
Many still are. Your bank is still processing **** right? Your trash is still being taken away right? Your packages are still coming from every online place you order from right? Your lights are still on right? Your water still turn on? You are naive if you think all of these places are testing all of their employees every day.
I work in corrections. Our facility had an outbreak and was shut down. Just wanted to establish that for the next part...
All that they are doing with us is temperature checks at the door as far as testing. We are masked pretty much all shift and are cleaning pretty constantly.
I dont think social distancing and testing is going to make the virus disappear. Unless of course, every single person, without exception, shelters in place for about 8 weeks with their own stock of food and water. Short of that, people are still going to get infected and some will die. It sucks, but until there is a vacine or herd immunity, that is reality. Gov Ricketts has stated that the goal is to not overwhelm healthcare. If that can be done with only limited restrictions on businesses and gatherings, then that is the direction Nebraska will go.
Kind of depends on the situation, but executive orders don't apply to sheriff's departments so it would be a form of martial law if the state police stepped in and superceded the sheriff. I dont think thats a situation that anybody wants.
Widespread testing will most certainly have a positive impact on the transmission of this virus. It's very simple. If people test positive, they need to stay at home until they don't test positive. And each person that is going back to work needs to be tested before they go back to work.
Forget about herd immunity. If 60-70% of the population contracts this virus, millions are going to die. We need to dramatically increase testing to get people working again, with the thought that testing will take us up to the time that a vaccine is approved. In the meantime, implement wearing masks as a rule for public places. If people try to enter without a mask, send 'em packing.
I'm not saying it wont slow it down. It just wont stop it in its tracks. It is still going to chug along erupting in spots here and there. Testing and tracking will be an attempt to put out the fires as they erupt, but it is not a cure.
- Status