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.
Hopefully, the state will pursue other avenues to punish the salon owner. Her actions were incredibly selfish and dangerous to others. Anyone who defends her (or the judge) is equally selfish. It's no more complicated than that. You can whine about your rights until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that your rights stop when exercising said rights negatively impacts others. Our entire legal system embraces this concept. If you think otherwise, let me know where you live. I'll be happy to drive down your street at 100 mph, break into your house to get stuff I "need", and have target practice on your front lawn at 2am with the biggest, loudest firearms I can find. Because, you know, "rights"
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.
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 were just smack talking me two pages ago with your “law and order” malarkey, but now wish to engage in a conversation about the Constitutional rights of Americans?
Get outta here. I don’t entertain those who disrespect me.
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.
Nope. Not even a nice try. If this somehow makes it to Federal court, the judge will be vindicated.
SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 US 262 ”If the state does convert your right into a privilege, you can ignore the state and engage in the right with impunity.”
The Judge has officially lost his "qualified immunity"
Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.
Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Peason v. Callahan
Abbott announced he was eliminating confinement as a punishment for violating the emergency orders over COVID-19, and said they would apply retroactively.
But because Luther was jailed for contempt of court, not violating Abbott’s executive order, it was unclear that she would be released before week’s end.
That judge's abilities to judge should be highly scrutinized. Any time a judge falls victim to a political side like this, it reveals their true bias and he should be punished accordingly.
Common sense went out the window here. She should be released immediately and reimbursed any lost wages, as-a-result of her ridiculous jailing.
Nope. Not even a nice try. If this somehow makes it to Federal court, the judge will be vindicated.
How so? Please explain how he has convincing evidence, to have the authority to nullify a person's 9th Amendment rights, with no crime committed.
Remembering, government CANNOT turn your rights into a crime.
You can bet money this "makes it to federal court". where else would it be litigated? He did this under his authority granted by the State. I guess he did violate the State constitution, too. That is where his qualified immunity goes, in a civil lawsuit.
This judge loses YUGE!
There were no movements and no gofundme's for them.
Not surprised. They are down on the border in Laredo. A very poor part of the state. News is too full of cartel crap down there to bother with the story, so us just a couple hundred miles away didn’t hear about it until the past couple days.
The woman in Dallas is apparently a popular entertainer. She lives in the Dallas Metroplex and is well-known. Probably even has press contacts. There’s a world of difference between these women.
SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 US 262 ”If the state does convert your right into a privilege, you can ignore the state and engage in the right with impunity.”
The Judge has officially lost his "qualified immunity"
Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.
Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Peason v. Callahan
Instead of trying to have rational debates with SovCits, I've decided to just start employing their debate techniques (spouting random gibberish that isn't applicable to the topic at hand). My response to your post:
According to United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller (307U.S.433), I reserve my rights to enter joinder with the Articles of Confederation while traveling in my personal conveyance. Furthermore, I do not consent and declare myself to be Moorish and not subject to Maritime Admiralty laws.
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.
