Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So its unconstitutional to isolate everyone, but not unconstitutional to isolate just the vulnerable?

You wouldn’t believe all the things the “constitution”’says...because it doesn’t say it.

What’s even better is the things that it actually says that aren’t believed.

There’s an unwritten clause in the constitution which I’ve never seen but is apparently there that says all of these rules only apply to me if they don’t limit my ability to do exactly what I want.

This is the most truthful take on the entire thread.

 

[SamusAranX]

Ok, so I just have to ask. Exactly what part of the constitution is being violated by either a temporary stay at home order, or a temporary order to close certain businesses that may spread the virus faster than others? Please be specific.

Oh, exactly how is limiting the number of people in a household violating anyone's constitution rights?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That’s to me what some may reason on that you can’t stop people from gathering. You can close public spaces but some may defy it reasoning they have the right to gather

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That’s to me what some may reason on that you can’t stop people from gathering. You can close public spaces but some may defy it reasoning they have the right to gather

Except that there is no law in Congress that is limiting people from assembling. None. There are a few governors that are asking people to limit the gatherings to a certain number of people, but that isn't removing the right to assemble at all, so there is no constitutional issue at all.

 

[jmp85]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That’s to me what some may reason on that you can’t stop people from gathering. You can close public spaces but some may defy it reasoning they have the right to gather

I'm on board with everyone doing their part. I'm good with the states having the ability to limit certain business activities, but I don't believe they have any legal authority to limit Joe Smith from visiting his mom and the rest of the family at their own private residence. It's kind of crazy that people support giving government the authority to do so.

 

[jmp85]

Except that there is no law in Congress that is limiting people from assembling. None. There are a few governors that are asking people to limit the gatherings to a certain number of people, but that isn't removing the right to assemble at all, so there is no constitutional issue at all.

Advisories are fine.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I'm on board with everyone doing their part. I'm good with the states having the ability to limit certain business activities, but I don't believe they have any legal authority to limit Joe Smith from visiting his mom and the rest of the family at their own private residence. It's kind of crazy that people support giving government the authority to do so.

No government is stopping Joe Smith from visiting his family this at all. Where are you getting this from?

 

[SamusAranX]

Except that there is no law in Congress that is limiting people from assembling. None. There are a few governors that are asking people to limit the gatherings to a certain number of people, but that isn't removing the right to assemble at all, so there is no constitutional issue at all.

Ok, using that reasoning, states can implement laws restricting religion or free speech, because you're focusing on the "congress shall make no law" portion. But the US long ago started "incorporation" where they legally have applied all the amendments except one or two to the states and their actions. So that doesn't roll.

 

[SamusAranX]

No government is stopping Joe Smith from visiting his family this at all. Where are you getting this from?

California is under stay at home orders. Except for work or essentials. doesn't mean people are listening unfortunately.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Ok, using that reasoning, states can implement laws restricting religion or free speech, because you're focusing on the "congress shall make no law" portion. But the US long ago started "incorporation" where they legally have applied all the amendments except one or two to the states and their actions. So that doesn't roll.

So please tell us one instance anywhere in this country that have implemented LAWS restricting either of those?

 

[Chi84]

@LuvtheGoof: As I stated, temporary, limited orders tailored to achieve a necessary government goal will likely survive constitutional challenge. I was responding to a poster who asked about the constitutionality of isolating the elderly.

Specifically, challenges to travel restrictions have been made arguing that they violate the constitutional right to interstate travel, which is covered by the 14th amendment's protection of liberty. The right to gather together is protected by the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech and assembly. It is not necessary for a government action to completely prohibit the right to gather in order for it to be an unconstitutional restriction.

The US constitution applies to laws made by Congress, but certain provisions have been extended to the states through the 14th amendment. Also, states have their own state constitutions that limit actions by their legislative and executive branches.

In any event, I think you may have misread my post. I was not arguing that the current restrictions are likely to be held unconstitutional. But it is just plain inaccurate to say there are no constitutional questions presented by them.

 

[jmp85]

No government is stopping Joe Smith from visiting his family this at all. Where are you getting this from?

I'm referring to things like this. It's "guidance" but they also use the term "mandatory" within the text.

Gatherings that include more than 3 households are prohibited. This includes everyone present, including hosts and guests. Remember, the smaller the number of people, the safer.

CDPH Guidance for the Prevention of COVID-19 Transmission for Gatherings 10 09

www.cdph.ca.gov

 

[SamusAranX]

As I stated, temporary, limited orders tailored to achieve a necessary government goal will likely survive constitutional challenge. I was responding to a poster who asked about the constitutionality of isolating the elderly.

Specifically, challenges to travel restrictions have been made arguing that they violate the constitutional right to interstate travel, which is covered by the 14th amendment's protection of liberty. The right to gather together is protected by the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech and assembly. It is not necessary for a government action to completely prohibit the right to gather in order for it to be an unconstitutional restriction.

The US constitution applies to laws made by Congress, but certain provisions have been extended to the states through the 14th amendment. Also, states have their own state constitutions that limit actions by their legislative and executive branches.

In any event, I think you may have misread my post. I was not arguing that the current restrictions are likely to be held unconstitutional. But it is just plain inaccurate to say there are no constitutional questions presented by them.

Ok, I am a history buff and this is a dumb correction. But right to travel is actually protected by the Privilege's and Immunities clause in the 14th, not the due process clause. Sorry, I couldn't help myself

 

[LuvtheGoof]

California is under stay at home orders. Except for work or essentials. doesn't mean people are listening unfortunately.

If you read the order, it doesn't really prevent someone from visiting family.

The Regional Stay at Home Order would be in effect for 3 weeks after the trigger and instructs Californians to stay at home as much as possible to limit the mixing with other households that can lead to COVID-19 spread. It allows access to (including travel for) critical services and allows outdoor activities to preserve Californians’ physical and mental health. This limited closure will help stop the surge and prevent overwhelming regional ICU capacity.

 

[Chi84]

Ok, I am a history buff and this is a dumb correction. But right to travel is actually protected by the Privilege's and Immunities clause in the 14th, not the due process clause. Sorry, I couldn't help myself

No problem. I didn't say anything specifically about the due process clause. The actual specifics tend to be unnecessary in these types of discussions.

 

[JoeCamel]

If you read the order, it doesn't really prevent someone from visiting family.

The Regional Stay at Home Order would be in effect for 3 weeks after the trigger and instructs Californians to stay at home as much as possible to limit the mixing with other households that can lead to COVID-19 spread. It allows access to (including travel for) critical services and allows outdoor activities to preserve Californians’ physical and mental health. This limited closure will help stop the surge and prevent overwhelming regional ICU capacity.

Outdoor activities to preserve mental health?
I can hear the call to open DL now...

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Ok, I am a history buff and this is a dumb correction. But right to travel is actually protected by the Privilege's and Immunities clause in the 14th, not the due process clause. Sorry, I couldn't help myself

I have read the 14th amendment, and I see nowhere in it that says people have a right to travel.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Outdoor activities to preserve mental health?
I can hear the call to open DL now...

Lot's of people have been calling for that for months. Talk to the governor.

 

[SamusAranX]

If you read the order, it doesn't really prevent someone from visiting family.

The Regional Stay at Home Order would be in effect for 3 weeks after the trigger and instructs Californians to stay at home as much as possible to limit the mixing with other households that can lead to COVID-19 spread. It allows access to (including travel for) critical services and allows outdoor activities to preserve Californians’ physical and mental health. This limited closure will help stop the surge and prevent overwhelming regional ICU capacity.

You're talking to the wrong guy, I believe in taking precautions. I am just playing devil's advocate for how some of these restrictions could be legally interpreted.

 

[Flugell]

Okay, it’s confused from over the pond again!
If recommendations are being ignored and mandates/laws are unconstitutional where does that leave the USA?

 

[Chi84]

People are so dismissive of mental health.

I have read the 14th amendment, and I see nowhere in it that says people have a right to travel.

Come back after you've read all the Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying it. That's where most of the law is made.