Bill Barr threatens to join lawsuits against stay-home orders

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

Read what? Your replies?

Actually, I was referring to the Constitution, and specifically the first amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, yes, I have both quoted and paraphrased the enumerated Constitutional right.

What words and concepts don't you understand?

I'm understanding just fine. You're the one asking questions to figure it out. Which words and concepts do you not understand???

A Presidential declaration of a Public Health Emergency?
A Presidential declaration of war?
Congressional Acts?
State and local government edicts?

I know and understand that those are not the source of our rights, those do not enumerate our rights, and those do not supersede our rights. The only relevant authority beyond the Constitution itself is the Supreme Court, and you have not cited any Supreme Court decisions, nor any case law precedents at all.

a reply to: Sookiechacha4

Please read what I wrote.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Boadicea


Yes , Unfortunately I am a Libertarian Living in N.J. where Personal Freedoms go to Die .....(

My sympathies

Have a beer on me

And keep telling yourself that we're living in interesting times and anything can happen. Even good things!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Sillyolme

Baloney. All they gotta do is open the door and go outside.

Because of course no one has any health issues or disabilities or any other factor that would prevent them from doing so, right??? No such thing as wheel chairs and walkers... much less bedridden, right???

Of course you know better. You know damn well that people are being harmed, and yes, even dying, because of these Draconian orders. But you will minimize, mock and belittle those that you trample for your own protection. The weakest and most in need of compassion and assistance.

Your depraved heart is showing.

Bless you for being so eloquent in your observations of Draconian orders and the silly ideas to accept them as good for us.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

He needs to learn his place and stop trying to be a dictator.

So, being against restrictions on constitutional rights = being a dictator.

Right.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

Good is evil and evil is now considered good.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sillyolme

In some places, they say you cannot drive up to your church in your car and listen to your pastor on a low power AM frequency without ever rolling down a window, but you can drive through McD's and pass stuff back and forth through the drive-thru window all day.

Why can't you do one but not the other especially when freedom of religion is specifically spelled out, all social distancing is being observed, and the other is frikken drive-thru.

Why in Michigan can you not travel from one of your own houses to the other inside the state, but someone who lives outside the state can travel in to one of their own houses inside the state?

Why are we arresting lone paddle boarders in California?

Those are the types of things they're stepping in on.

Because repeatedly the attendees choose to get out of their cars and mingle after the service.

I think someone should have got out of their cars and said CITIZENS ARREST for and unlawful order that violates Freedom of Religion and chase the cops out of there. Lawsuits are surely pending the gov and their lackey's who chose to obey an unlawful order.

We would love to save everyone, how do we do that and not make more people die from the consequences. BS factors will be proven and I have seen enough.

So Citizens arrest is in order then as my post above was about.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
www.justice.gov...

Uh-Ohhhh...😬

Let's start with the County Health Officers and work our way up.

a reply to: Justoneman

LOL! "Eloquent" is the last word I'd probably use. But thank you -- I'll take it!

This blatant and brazen dismissal of other people's suffering for their own protection fills me with a cold hard rage. And when those cowards then dare accuse those of us objecting as wanting to kill people -- grrrrrrrrr! -- well, let's just say I'm not having it. Not now. Not ever.

FTS.

a reply to: Boadicea
The left wants to destroy the 2nd. So now the republicans want to destroy the 10th?

a reply to: Justoneman

I think someone should have got out of their cars and said CITIZENS ARREST for and unlawful order that violates Freedom of Religion and chase the cops out of there.

I would love to see that... I would love to do that! We The People need to take a stand, individually and collectively. We need to challenge their moral and legal authority in these times.

Lawsuits are surely pending the gov and their lackey's who chose to obey an unlawful order.

No doubt. I only hope they are given the opportunity to file those lawsuits. As another poster stated, courts are closed to the public in many places. Apparently our Constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances has also been deemed "non-essential".

We would love to save everyone, how do we do that and not make more people die from the consequences. BS factors will be proven and I have seen enough.

This is one of those times when we have no good options, because we cannot save everyone, so we have to choose our best options. And that's not throwing some people to the wolves to protect themselves.

We need to educate, encourage and empower the people to take care of themselves and each other. We need to protect and take care of the vulnerable and elderly (not abandon them!). We need to take reasonable precautions for reasonable risks and outcomes, knowing that we cannot stop this; we can only manage it and get through it. We need to enable and empower the medical community to handle the high volume of patients as well as the virus itself -- NOT just the sickest patients, but other serious CoV cases, and everyone who has health needs. (Obviously not wants, like elective surgeries) We need to "shutdown" or restrict those businesses and events at greatest risk of mass spread*, such as major sporting events and concerts and such, as well as businesses that involve touching and bodily fluids. We can encourage and promote employees working from home, virtual meetings, curbside pickup, home deliveries and mail order -- minimizing in-person contact, and the number of people touching items you purchase.

ETA: * Only for as long as we have legitimate reason to believe that slowing the spread is in fact necessary, so that hospitals are not overwhelmed. And one more caveat: If venues can work out a reasonable way to carry on, such as letting the artists or teams go ahead and do their thing as planned with a virtual audience. I hope this makes sense. I'm really going to bed now!

I could go on, but I can't hardly stay awake! It's way past my bedtime. I'm sure I'll have other opportunities to wax on about it tho...

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
a reply to: Boadicea
The left wants to destroy the 2nd. So now the republicans want to destroy the 10th?

Hmmmm... how so? I can take that a dozen different directions, ramble incoherently, and still might not know what YOU mean by it!

So do please elaborate?

a reply to: Boadicea

Maybe some of the moderator removed posts are of Bills standup, in evidence of his character.

I don't think it is too hard to see that Bill is MSM/Illuminati if you look at his history. Its kinda obvious when he brings up conspiracy theories like about Slaves being bred:

a reply to: ColoradoJens

Maybe some of the moderator removed posts are of Bills standup, in evidence of his character.

Um... no.

I don't think it is too hard to see that Bill is MSM/Illuminati if you look at his history. Its kinda obvious when he brings up conspiracy theories like about Slaves being bred...

Well, I'll trust your judgment on Bill Burr. I've never heard of him before.

But we are discussing William Barr, Attorney General of the USA, and the legal actions threatened/taken by the AG in regards to lawsuits against state's shutdown orders.

a reply to: Boadicea

No "if" about it. You can read. You know it. You just want to justify it because "public health emergency."

So, if Trump and his lawyers, including the Attorney General, Bill Barr, thought all along that "Stay at Home" orders violate the Constitution, why did they endorse them? Why did Bill Barr wait until now to stand against it? Why didn't they say it when Washington and California went into lock down? Why was it all good until Trump started calling for states to reopen, without lifting his National National Public Health Emergency declaration, by the way.

I'll tell you why. It isn't and they don't.

If there was a mass shooter on the loose in your area, and local authorities ordered you to stay inside for a few hours, would your rights have been violated? No, not technically. Would it matter if it was a Sunday, and you wanted to go to church? Nope, because this isn't about your right to go to church to freely and peacefully assemble. It's about public health and safety. The order doesn't suddenly become illegal because of where you can't go or because it's taking cops too long to clear your area.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

So, if Trump and his lawyers, including the Attorney General, Bill Barr, thought all along that "Stay at Home" orders violate the Constitution, why did they endorse them?

Please. I can't speak to what's in the heart and mind of anyone but myself. I can only speculate like everyone else.

Why did Bill Barr wait until now to stand against it?

See above.

Why didn't they say it when Washington and California went into lock down?

See above.

Why was it all good until Trump started calling for states to reopen, without lifting his National National Public Health Emergency declaration, by the way.

It was never "all good" to me. I don't care if Trump was for it or against it. Trump doesn't do my thinking for me.

I'll tell you why. It isn't and they don't.

Okay.

If there was a mass shooter on the loose in your area, and local authorities ordered you to stay inside for a few hours, would your rights have been violated? No, not technically. Would it matter if it was a Sunday, and you wanted to go to church? Nope, because this isn't about your right to go to church to freely and peacefully assemble. It's about public health and safety. The order doesn't suddenly become illegal because of where you can't go or because it's taking cops too long to clear your area.

Okay, gotcha. Constitutional rights mean nothing to you as you genuflect before your masters.

But it will be a cold day in hell before I do so.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I dont think its the general concept of stay-at-home that bothers some of us.

Though, perhaps a key to insight is in the wording: stay-at-home orders.

Its not so much that it exists, but in how it is enforced. There are quite a few ways to actually go about getting people to stay at home.. without using punishment that may very well cross the line into unConstitutional.

Also as discussed, there are massive issues with its widespread implementation, from the economy to no longer being about hospital occupancy & capability. That stuff raises some serious questions..

a reply to: Serdgiam

Its not so much that it exists, but in how it is enforced. There are quite a few ways to actually go about getting people to stay at home.. without using punishment that may very well cross the line into unConstitutional.

Thank you for saying this.

Much of this could have been done voluntarily -- and was already being done voluntarily, and would have continued being done voluntarily.

Rather than a "stimulus" package to fix what they broke, the Feds could have offered incentives and encouragement for companies to restructure in appropriate ways.

This has always been a power grab.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Though, perhaps a key to insight is in the wording: stay-at-home orders.

It's a "Shelter in Place" lite.

Its not so much that it exists, but in how it is enforced. There are quite a few ways to actually go about getting people to stay at home.. without using punishment that may very well cross the line into unConstitutional.

I'm not sure about that. And, if people getting temporarily detained/arrested, like the lone paddle boarder in Malibu California, there is legal recourse, at the local court level to get a judge to throw it out. If he/she doesn't, take it higher, eventually to the Supreme Court, if need be.

Unfortunately, that's the system we have. I'm just being pragmatic.

Also as discussed, there are massive issues with its widespread implementation, from the economy to no longer being about hospital occupancy & capability. That stuff raises some serious questions..

Absolutely, but Bill Barr's feigned concern for your civil rights didn't arise until Trump started pushing against Democrat governors he doesn't like. California's restrictions are just as draconian as Michigan's, but Trump likes Gavin.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Serdgiam

Rather than a "stimulus" package to fix what they broke, the Feds could have offered incentives and encouragement for companies to restructure in appropriate ways.

Right?

I mean, we are throwing trillions (..literally..) of dollars in the air, why not actually direct it? Id still vehemently disagree that all that money is the right way to do things, but I guess you could say Id be less opposed to it.

Im a much bigger fan of the idea of delivering the tools for decentralized self-sufficiency and autonomy to each household. In home manufacturing, food production, etc. A pricey proposition.. With the tools to do it only being recently available on the mass market (or close to it). But again, we are talking trillions (Trillions!!) of dollars that I assume will mostly just.. evaporate.

This has always been a power grab.

Sadly, yes. Its the same thing we have seen repeated in every crisis in my lifetime at least. This time though.. Its on quite an impressive scale.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I can appreciate the pragmatism. Like I said, I think other options are significantly more viable. Not just short term for SARS-CoV-2, but for the long term health of the US and in ways that most dont consider.

So, I guess you could say that what Im already talking about is my personal "compromise" based in pragmatism. I fully understand that the entities and organizations looking to benefit from all this Do. Not. Want. self-sufficiency and self determination on the individual level.

Clearly this is the system we have though, given the fact that its happening.

My sincere concern is that not only do many of these actions verge on, or arguably cross the line into being unConstitutional.. They have the distinct chance of making *everything* worse from medical apparatus capability to food production to the general economy.

Trying to stem that tide might be critically important to the future of our nation. I dont care if its dems or repubs doing it, they appear to be crippling what they ostensibly want to "save." Thats putting aside all my more personal biases and notions, and just looking at the surface of the situation.

Someone like Barr stepping in on this level might have benefits far beyond the political.