| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. |
|
#33
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. That's not exactly what I said. A law can be determined to be unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also be modified or eliminated via the legislative process. But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:09:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. That's not exactly what I said. I did paste it there from your note. A law can be determined to be unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also be modified or eliminated via the legislative process. But as Wayne pointed out, that usually has to happen by breaking the law unless the legislature does it and legislatures don't usually revoke these kinds of laws on their own. But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books. As I pointed out, simply being on the books doesn't necessarily make it right. Someone needs to put their ass on the line to challenge it. The Marijuana control act of 1937 was clearly unconstitutional for 32 years until Timothy Leary got himself arrested for it and took it to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately it was replaced by an even more unconstitutional law (The controlled substance act) that is being ignored to avoid a court case that would overturn it. The first federal prosecutor who takes on a state with a legal pot law, medical or recreational, is likely to end up in court with 47 state (plus DC) attorneys general who have standing and the money to fight them. This has been the situation since 1996 when California started selling medicinal pot. |
|
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On 4/15/2020 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:09:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. That's not exactly what I said. I did paste it there from your note. A law can be determined to be unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also be modified or eliminated via the legislative process. But as Wayne pointed out, that usually has to happen by breaking the law unless the legislature does it and legislatures don't usually revoke these kinds of laws on their own. But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books. As I pointed out, simply being on the books doesn't necessarily make it right. Someone needs to put their ass on the line to challenge it. The Marijuana control act of 1937 was clearly unconstitutional for 32 years until Timothy Leary got himself arrested for it and took it to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately it was replaced by an even more unconstitutional law (The controlled substance act) that is being ignored to avoid a court case that would overturn it. The first federal prosecutor who takes on a state with a legal pot law, medical or recreational, is likely to end up in court with 47 state (plus DC) attorneys general who have standing and the money to fight them. This has been the situation since 1996 when California started selling medicinal pot. I understand the argument you are making but it all comes down to what one person or group thinks is unconstitutional and what another person or group thinks otherwise. To simply break the law if you don't agree with it is your choice but it doesn't mean a law was legally determined to be unconstitutional. As you say, it's a means of challenging a law but it doesn't change it. Here's my problem with your philosophy on this. You and I (or others) may have very different ideas of what is constitutional or not depending on our interests and how it affects us. To simply disregard it and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore makes the whole concept of having a nation based on laws moot. People can pick and choose what laws they want to adhere to and those they have personally decided don't apply to them. Changing or eliminating existing laws needs to be done through the appropriate legal process, not by cherry picking what one wants to adhere to and what one doesn't. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2020 8:05 AM, wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:09:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. That's not exactly what I said. I did paste it there from your note. A law can be determined to be unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also be modified or eliminated via the legislative process. But as Wayne pointed out, that usually has to happen by breaking the law unless the legislature does it and legislatures don't usually revoke these kinds of laws on their own. But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books. As I pointed out, simply being on the books doesn't necessarily make it right. Someone needs to put their ass on the line to challenge it. The Marijuana control act of 1937 was clearly unconstitutional for 32 years until Timothy Leary got himself arrested for it and took it to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately it was replaced by an even more unconstitutional law (The controlled substance act) that is being ignored to avoid a court case that would overturn it. The first federal prosecutor who takes on a state with a legal pot law, medical or recreational, is likely to end up in court with 47 state (plus DC) attorneys general who have standing and the money to fight them. This has been the situation since 1996 when California started selling medicinal pot. I understand the argument you are making but it all comes down to what one person or group thinks is unconstitutional and what another person or group thinks otherwise. To simply break the law if you don't agree with it is your choice but it doesn't mean a law was legally determined to be unconstitutional. As you say, it's a means of challenging a law but it doesn't change it. Here's my problem with your philosophy on this. You and I (or others) may have very different ideas of what is constitutional or not depending on our interests and how it affects us. To simply disregard it and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore makes the whole concept of having a nation based on laws moot. People can pick and choose what laws they want to adhere to and those they have personally decided don't apply to them. Changing or eliminating existing laws needs to be done through the appropriate legal process, not by cherry picking what one wants to adhere to and what one doesn't. The problem is the appropriate legal process. Unless someone has broken the law, the court will not take up the case 99.99% of the time. |
|
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:26:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/15/2020 8:05 AM, wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:09:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. That's not exactly what I said. I did paste it there from your note. A law can be determined to be unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also be modified or eliminated via the legislative process. But as Wayne pointed out, that usually has to happen by breaking the law unless the legislature does it and legislatures don't usually revoke these kinds of laws on their own. But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books. As I pointed out, simply being on the books doesn't necessarily make it right. Someone needs to put their ass on the line to challenge it. The Marijuana control act of 1937 was clearly unconstitutional for 32 years until Timothy Leary got himself arrested for it and took it to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately it was replaced by an even more unconstitutional law (The controlled substance act) that is being ignored to avoid a court case that would overturn it. The first federal prosecutor who takes on a state with a legal pot law, medical or recreational, is likely to end up in court with 47 state (plus DC) attorneys general who have standing and the money to fight them. This has been the situation since 1996 when California started selling medicinal pot. I understand the argument you are making but it all comes down to what one person or group thinks is unconstitutional and what another person or group thinks otherwise. To simply break the law if you don't agree with it is your choice but it doesn't mean a law was legally determined to be unconstitutional. As you say, it's a means of challenging a law but it doesn't change it. Here's my problem with your philosophy on this. You and I (or others) may have very different ideas of what is constitutional or not depending on our interests and how it affects us. To simply disregard it and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore makes the whole concept of having a nation based on laws moot. People can pick and choose what laws they want to adhere to and those they have personally decided don't apply to them. Changing or eliminating existing laws needs to be done through the appropriate legal process, not by cherry picking what one wants to adhere to and what one doesn't. The constitution is there for everyone to read. Unfortunately too many of our legislators and presidents couldn't be bothered. Most notably the 9th and 10th amendments seem to be ignored completely in DC. The assumption seems to be, at least for the last 50 years, that federal powers are complete and all encompassing, no matter what limitations were put on the federal government by our founders. |
|
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:25:52 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/15/2020 8:05 AM, wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:09:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the government to enforce unconstitutional laws. The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did to get a Jim Crow law tossed. I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be dismissed. BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses are open. That's not exactly what I said. I did paste it there from your note. A law can be determined to be unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also be modified or eliminated via the legislative process. But as Wayne pointed out, that usually has to happen by breaking the law unless the legislature does it and legislatures don't usually revoke these kinds of laws on their own. But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books. As I pointed out, simply being on the books doesn't necessarily make it right. Someone needs to put their ass on the line to challenge it. The Marijuana control act of 1937 was clearly unconstitutional for 32 years until Timothy Leary got himself arrested for it and took it to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately it was replaced by an even more unconstitutional law (The controlled substance act) that is being ignored to avoid a court case that would overturn it. The first federal prosecutor who takes on a state with a legal pot law, medical or recreational, is likely to end up in court with 47 state (plus DC) attorneys general who have standing and the money to fight them. This has been the situation since 1996 when California started selling medicinal pot. I understand the argument you are making but it all comes down to what one person or group thinks is unconstitutional and what another person or group thinks otherwise. To simply break the law if you don't agree with it is your choice but it doesn't mean a law was legally determined to be unconstitutional. As you say, it's a means of challenging a law but it doesn't change it. Here's my problem with your philosophy on this. You and I (or others) may have very different ideas of what is constitutional or not depending on our interests and how it affects us. To simply disregard it and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore makes the whole concept of having a nation based on laws moot. People can pick and choose what laws they want to adhere to and those they have personally decided don't apply to them. Changing or eliminating existing laws needs to be done through the appropriate legal process, not by cherry picking what one wants to adhere to and what one doesn't. The problem is the appropriate legal process. Unless someone has broken the law, the court will not take up the case 99.99% of the time. If you win your case in appellate court and the SCOTUS lets the decision stand it is almost as good as a SCOTUS decision tho. It can be used as precedent but it still does not have the gravitas of a SCOTUS decision. OTOH even SCOTUS decisions can be challenged, usually after a major change in the court. That is why a lot of people fear massive changes in the makeup of the court. The Holmes court certainly had different views from the Warren and Burger courts. I know a lot of people want to see the Roberts court revisit a lot of those older decisions but be careful what you wish for. If they take another swing at Roe, they might also endanger a "privacy" right you do care about. "Privacy" was the legal issue in Roe, not abortion. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Social Security and Libertarians | General | |||
| Supply and Demand | General | |||
| by popular demand | General | |||
| Still a big demand for big $$$ boating..... | General | |||
| Shoal keels in demand | ASA | |||
![Mr. Luddite[_4_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
