Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who knows? I am sure it is a struggle to lose income and have no help. She applied for a PPP loan and didn't receive it until this past Sunday (at least according to another poster here who I am going to just assume has that correct). Are you saying people who have nice houses and go on cruises and stuff can't suffer from a complete loss of revenue from arbitrary orders from the government?
I am certainly not saying that. But she is literally saying that she is struggling to buy food for her children, and that is a lie. She said her stylists are doing w/o food to feed their kids, which is a lie. She said they are LITERALLY going hungry.
Precisely what freedom is about. A barber or hair-dresser can decide to remain closed, or to take people's temperatures when they come. A customer is not dragooned into coming. I think the risks are well-known by now.
This is an argument better levied towards the legalization of narcotics than it is towards a close-contact business in the midst of a pandemic with a high R0 well above 5 with airborne community spread...
You're leaving out half of what freedom is. Freedom also means that people are protected from other people with communicable disease. This is what public health is. There are too many people who do not understand that asymptomatic people are spreading this virus.
That means I suppose that we all should have stayed in our childhood bedrooms where Mommy and Daddy protect us from all harm. Many soldiers even returned to their little bedrooms for a short time after WW II and Korean Wars. Didn't stay there for long though.
Abbot amended his Executive order to remove confinement as a punishment for violating it. Retro-active. Specifically mentioned Shelly Luther and the two Hispanic ladies who were also arrested stating this should release them.
That means I suppose that we all should have stayed in our childhood bedrooms where Mommy and Daddy protect us from all harm.
You should have only stayed in your childhood bedroom if you had smallpox or Covid-19. It is not about protecting you, but protecting the rest of the population.
Abbot amended his Executive order to remove confinement as a punishment for violating it. Retro-active. Specifically mentioned Shelly Luther and the two Hispanic ladies who were also arrested stating this should release them.
That’s great news. I’m glad the two women in Laredo were included. Yesterday’s cries of racism in this thread seem a bit silly now.
This is an argument better levied towards the legalization of narcotics than it is towards a close-contact business in the midst of a pandemic with a high R0 well above 5 with airborne community spread...
I am all for legalization of marijuana and maybe even some non-crack cocaine, as a liberal Democrat.
I must have missed that day in Civics when the class was taught that freedom means being free of diseases.
There has always been a right to be free from harm in the Constitution by virtue of the "general welfare" clause. This has manifested itself in all types of State and Federal Public Health laws, among others.
This (admittedly poorly titled) article considers the juxtaposition of "the individual freedom to infect others" and "the freedom to be free from infection by others." Those cloaking themselves in the the mantle of "freedom" when acting recklessly in their community out to consider that, by doing, they are depriving a number of others of their liberty. Does Shelly Luther's freedom to run a hair salon really overshadow the rights of Shelly Luther's neighbors to be free from the spread of infection by her? I'm not so sure.
You might also want to read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court confirmed that a State could criminalize the failure to get vaccinated during a pandemic without running afoul of the Constitution because Constitutional protections were not absolute.
The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person.
But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned.
The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law.
[...]
We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take, and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.
You should have only stayed in your childhood bedroom if you had smallpox or Covid-19. It is not about protecting you, but protecting the rest of the population.
Collectivism is not part of our national identity no matter how badly some wish for it to be.
People like me, who are concerned about catching COVID, simply need to remain home a little longer. Those who have already had it or whom are not afraid of catching it should be free to resume their lives as much as possible. THAT’S freedom.
Sad part is, in Texas the governor cannot just override a judges order.
She violated a judges direct order. (be it an unconstitutional direct order)
That does not say she will not have regress in a Federal Courtroom, to prove this judge treated her like his property by violating her 9th Amendment, under the color of law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
