A Republican candidate for governor has filed a federal lawsuit against Washington Governor Inslee for violation of constitutional rights as a result of the ongoing lockdown. Here a link to the complaint:
In Michigan, the legislature has authorized a lawsuit against Governor Whitmer when the state of emergency expired without extension by the legislature, and the governor unilaterally extended it by executive order. It is not clear whether the lawsuit would be in state or in federal courts.
In the case of Washington state, the strain of coronavirus found along the west coast has a similar fatality rate to that of season flu. My opinion is that rejection of constitutional challenges would effectively repeal the bill of rights and allow state governors virtual dictators based using executive orders.
Curiously I have seen no lawsuits from the ACLU the alleged defender of civil liberties. Why are they missing in action?
Is the beginning of the end for the legal basis for lockdowns?
Or is it the beginning of the end for US Constitution?
Is see it is more like Chinese-style politics. The governors are taking advantage of the virus as way to ignore civil rights. For example Californiaâs governor has banned all protests on state properties based on alleged concerns about âsocial distancingâ.
My observation is that the basis of civil rights cannot be whatever is most convenient and expedient for the government. Search warrants, elections, peaceful assemblies, etc. inherently create inconvenience and potential risks from the perspective of government officials.
Even if the coronavirus goes away, the governors can continue rule by fiat based concerns about seasonal flu or other diseases with similar risks to coronavirus based on the precedents determined here.
I say each state government should put up a website.
"We will lift the lockdown but you need to do this virtual signing where you will not hold us responsible if you or a loved one gets coronavirus and dies.
If a majority of folks say, âSure, weâll risk itâ the lock down ends.
The Justice Department has already said that they may take legal action against governors to protect civil rights. For example, they could choose to join the lawsuit in Washington State.
Here is a link to a news report and the actual memo:
Aerial video footage of the protests reported by KRON 4 shows crowds forming to demonstrate, with many people not wearing masks or maintaining the recommended 6-foot distance between each other.
Last week Newsom said he encourages residents to âpractice your free speechâ as long as they maintain social distancing guidelines while doing so.
California has a stay-at-home order in place, shuttering nonessential businesses and calling on residents to wear face coverings when outside and maintain a distance of 6 feet when in public.
The logic of banning all demonstrations on state property because some people may have violated social distancing guidelines is a form of collective punishment. Arrest or ticket the alleged violators instead.
Taking pictures with a telescopic lens makes people appear to be closer than they actually are; the videos I saw did not show any problems.
The death rate from the strain of coronavirus in California has been about .1%, which is similar to that of seasonal flu. Is the governor free to rescind the first amendment indefinitely based on alleged risks of disease?
Many people die from traffic accidents. Is the governor free to ban all demonstrations if any participants at any demonstration appear to be jay walking or violating traffic laws?
What all this outrage conveniently ignores is that state property is held for the benefit of all citizens, not just demonstrators. If demonstrators are acting in a way the blocks access to the vast majority of citizens, btt insisting on turning public property into a coronavirus hot zone, then the are clearly in the wrong --acting as if the property is their private property and not public property. The governor is acting to assure public access, as a governor of âall the peopleâ should.
The demonstrators can have full access to public property if they act in a fashion that respects that this is public property not the demonstratorâs property.
The lawsuit is is an attempt to enshrine selfishness into law. It is an attempt to enshrine disdain for oneâs fellow citizens into law.
And while you claim that demonstrators should be arrested instead â I donât for a minute believe that you wouldnât be posting furiously about how arrests violate the Constitutional right to assemble.
That case was about a law requiring smallpox vaccinations:
Where did say that governors can suspend the first amendment right to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, etc. for the entire population?
For reference smallpox had a death rate of 30 to 70% vs .1 to .5% for COVID-19.
As soon as someone states that a disease that causes as many deaths in one month as the flu causes in a year is the same as the flu, you know a lot of rethinking is needed.
And that number of deaths is under the current shelter in place restrictions. Allegedly, more people might have allegedly died with fewer restrictions. Allegedly.
