Yeah it’s pointless. I’ll argue about politics but I’m not gonna argue about reality.
To start with, while states have in the past restricted freedoms in response to health emergencies, that in no way means they can do anything they please. Their response must be the least restrictive possible and is to be judged under strict scrutiny when it comes to suspending constitutional rights. And when you look at precedent from farther back, keep in mind that was before many of the amendments were incorporated or applicable at the state level, which is no longer the case.
For everyone who thinks this is unconstitutional please just open your business. Instead of complaining about your rights being infringed stand by your convictions.
Legal consequences will not be a concern because I am sure you will be victorious in court by using the arguments expressed in a variety of posts over the past few weeks.
He didn’t cite a precedent . . . . the poster said “look it up.”
So I’m waiting for them to give any kind of evidence the 10th amendment or public heath (unelected officials) can suspend constitutional rights.
Then just ignore it all, open your business. Encourage your friends and family to go about as if everything is normal.
They can but those restrictions must be in response to grave danger, be the least restrictive possible to avoid that danger and are subject to strict scrutiny if challenged.
Oh, are you one of those people who doesn’t realize everyone is going to be exposed to this virus at some point? You think we can eradicate it using partial stay at home orders? That’s amusing.
Plenty more out there. Here’s a summary.
I realize that neither this, nor any source, will suffice.
Your pdf is talking about people known to be infected or exposed to someone who is, not blanket orders for everyone. And that isn’t even factoring in how effective it is if you let them go to “essential” businesses" and if it isn’t effective it won’t stand up.
Ask the general questions.
Are zoning laws consitutional?
Are maximum people limit by fire code consitutional?
Are laws requiring shoes and shirts be worn in stores consitutional?
Did you read that? It doesn’t answer the question in the OP.
quote a specific portion of the consitution that it violates.
That’s not CLOSING a business. apples to oranges.
Please show where in constitution that’s not allowed.
You are missing the point
We have already accepted laws that shut down busniess
If you want to get specific, show me in the consitution where a state government can not shut down a busniess, or put rules in place, for health.
Because if it doesn’t say they can’t in the consitution, if no where does it say “People may open a busniess anywhere at anytime” then “powers not delegated to the United States…are reserved to the states”
There is no delegated authority to “shut down” to the government at any level. It violates the fundamental purpose of government.
Oh and love what you did there.
Sure it did.
In 1902, the Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographic area in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health…
The petitioners in the case - a shipping company - challenged an statute as interpreted interfered with interstate commerce, and thus was an unconstitutional violation of the commerce clause. The Court rejected this argument, holding that although the statute may have had an affect on commerce, it was not unconstitutional.
No, it doesn’t. “The court” and “the Constitution” are two separate things.
Is that a contradiction?
Quote the specific portion of the Constitution that forbids states from enacting health mandated shelter at home orders
You continue to see in binary terms.
If a restaurant is violating numerous health code violations- Can the state shut them down? Is it constitutional?
You can start with freedom of assembly.