# Six (Impossible) Conditions Before People in California Are Free **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 15, 2020, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856 "2020-04-15T15:30:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/142 "2020-04-27T15:39:22Z")
Why not? If a bunch of people want to climb a rock-face together, or run a NASCAR race together, can the Government stop it? They’re being peaceful, even though they may be engaging in a joint activity that is unsafe (for certain values of unsafe…) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/143 "2020-04-27T15:57:30Z")
But if they put untold numbers of _others_ in danger, shouldn’t that be a factor? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/144 "2020-04-27T18:17:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Why not? If a bunch of people want to climb a rock-face together, or run a NASCAR race together, can the Government stop it? They’re being peaceful, even though they may be engaging in a joint activity that is unsafe (for certain values of unsafe…) That’s something I wanted to get your opinion on because it is generally pretty on point. We agree that Constitutional rights have limits and are subject to balancing tests in close cases or at the periphery. And posters here are repeating them ad nauseum: no falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, no child pornography, no virgin sacrifice, “your rights end where my nose begins,” you cannot possess a nuclear weapon (If anyone wants to add more, feel free) But this is qualitatively different. Is there any method of constitutional adjudication that you are aware of where you can _entirely_ remove a right enshrined in the Constitution under a balancing test or under one of these trite doctrines above? Take freedom of assembly. Like all rights, it is not absolute. I cannot assemble in the middle of a public highway, or your property, or as a violent mob. But there is something at the core of the right that says I can assemble with others in some meaningful way. When I point out that these executive orders prohibit assembly _entirely_, then these doctrines are trotted out. If we do a balancing test and say that peoples’ right to assemble is too dangerous under current circumstances and therefore people are unable to assemble at all, do you agree with me that these trite doctrine above do not apply and that what we are really arguing is that the Constitution contains a sort of suspension clause? Put another way. Let’s assume Heller is correct and that there is a right to own guns. We can say that nuclear weapons are not covered. We can argue about other details (machine guns, assault weapons, guns in schools, concealed weapons in public, etc.) but you would agree that we cannot argue thusly: 1. You have a right to own a gun. 2. Not all rights are absolute. 3. All pistols, shotguns, and rifles are dangerous and balanced against the public interest, your right to own a gun is lesser than that of overall public safety, therefore 4. You have no right to own a gun. That’s almost a reverse tautology. If you agree with that would you not also agree that the government cannot restrict a right to make it nearly meaningless such that persons over age 45 can own one single shot .20 gauge shotgun and keep one single round of ammunition provided they pay a $6,000 licensing fee and store the gun in a government armory, or that people can assemble on June 5 of odd numbered years for 10 minutes in groups of no greater than 3? (Assume the courts found proper balancing tests applicable). How is this any different in abolishing freedom of assembly? Is it different because this suspension is only temporary, with the word temporary being defined by the government that the right was enacted as a protection against? I think the whole thing is terribly dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/145 "2020-04-27T18:30:00Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If we do a balancing test and say that peoples’ right to assemble is too dangerous under current circumstances and therefore people are unable to assemble at all, do you agree with me that these trite doctrine above do not apply and that what we are really arguing is that the Constitution contains a sort of suspension clause? I’d put it differently. What we are really arguing is that the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Unthinking devotion to ideals encoded 200 years ago when we are currently faced with natural forces that may kill hundreds of thousands of Americans is not what the Constitution is about. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/146 "2020-04-27T18:52:14Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’d put it differently. What we are really arguing is that the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. > > Unthinking devotion to ideals encoded 200 years ago when we are currently faced with natural forces that may kill hundreds of thousands of Americans is not what the Constitution is about. “Not a suicide pact” I left that one off my list. Your flippant dismissal of basic rights (not ideals) enshrined in our founding document is frightening. At the bottom of all this, you are saying that maybe we have certain ideals so long as the government agrees we should have them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/147 "2020-04-27T19:07:56Z")
Are they banning political assemblies? or just requiring social distancing? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/148 "2020-04-27T19:12:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Does the First Amendment protect unsafe assemblies? Want to try and define “unsafe” … sounds like a very very slippery slope you’re on. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/149 "2020-04-27T19:17:31Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Why not? If a bunch of people want to climb a rock-face together, or run a NASCAR race together, can the Government stop it? They’re being peaceful, even though they may be engaging in a joint activity that is unsafe (for certain values of unsafe…) You are asserting that the First Amendment is not limited to speech in all its various forms, but also sport, eh? As in, Major League Baseball is a constitutionally protected right? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/150 "2020-04-27T19:18:58Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Want to try and define “unsafe” … sounds like a very very slippery slope you’re on. No more so than you and your companion’s argument that the Government cannot assert time, place, and manner limitations on any gathering of people, whether or not speech is actually involved. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/151 "2020-04-27T20:01:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > At the bottom of all this, you are saying that maybe we have certain ideals so long as the government agrees we should have them. No. So long as those ideals don’t directly hasten the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/152 "2020-04-27T20:21:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No more so than you and your companion’s argument that the Government cannot assert time, place, and manner limitations on any gathering of people, whether or not speech is actually involved. I think we have actually found THE very ideal that separates liberals from conservatives. I’d have the government err on the side of least restriction, you seem to want the max. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/153 "2020-04-27T21:00:51Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > I’d have the government err on the side of least restriction, you seem to want the max. Liberals would have the government err on the side of fewest deaths, you seem to want… well maybe not the max, but it doesn’t seem like fewest deaths is the goal. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/154 "2020-04-27T21:03:43Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Liberals would have the government err on the side of fewest deaths, you seem to want… well maybe not the max, **but it doesn’t seem like fewest deaths is the goal.** What if the goal is to decrease the surplus population? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/155 "2020-04-27T21:48:16Z")
\*"The most significant early decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to mention the state power to quarantine occurs in an 1824 case known as Gibbons v. Ogden. Considered a landmark decision on the federal power to regulate commerce on the interstate waters, Chief Justice John Marshall — our greatest chief justice; the competition is only for second — explained that one of the powers the state possessed was the power to quarantine. This was not controversial; as Marshall put it, the power to quarantine was seen as a power “flowing from the acknowledged power of a State to provide for the health of its citizens.” The Supreme Court’s most direct comment on the power to quarantine arose in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, a case from Louisiana, when the court considered a broad quarantine order, not unlike some of the quarantine orders our state leaders have considered over the last few weeks. Louisiana had faced outbreaks of Yellow Fever two out of every three summers throughout the 19th century, leading to a very aggressive state stance on the power to quarantine. The order the court considered read: “hereafter in the case of any town, city, or parish of Louisiana being declared in quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers, or others shall be allowed to enter said town, city, or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist.” The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, approved that order as constitutional when it was challenged by individuals who attempted to enter the state on a ship from Italy. Even though there was no evidence of symptoms of the fever or other disease on board, the court held that a state was justified to keep people out in order to protect the citizens of the state; that to do so did not violate the Constitution."\* > **[Are quarantine orders constitutional?](https://pacificlegal.org/are-quarantine-orders-constitutional/)** > > The question on many minds during our time of quarantine: How far can state government officials go in curtailing constitutional rights like the freedom of association, free exercise of religion, and right to travel among and between the states, in... ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/156 "2020-04-27T23:31:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No more so than you and your companion’s argument that the Government cannot assert time, place, and manner limitations on any gathering of people, whether or not speech is actually involved. Let’s add “time, place, and manner” to my above trite list. Again, that cannot be said to support absolutely no time at all at no place at all or in any manner at all. Just because the town can keep me and four of my confederates from screaming “Go Trump” into a bullhorn outside your house at 3am does not stand for the proposition that the government can then ban all assemblies at all times. It is a complete non sequitur. > [@DrDeth](#): > > \*"The most significant early decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to mention the state power to quarantine occurs in an 1824 case known as Gibbons v. Ogden. Considered a landmark decision on the federal power to regulate commerce on the interstate waters, Chief Justice John Marshall — our greatest chief justice; the competition is only for second — explained that one of the powers the state possessed was the power to quarantine. > > This was not controversial; as Marshall put it, the power to quarantine was seen as a power “flowing from the acknowledged power of a State to provide for the health of its citizens.” > > The Supreme Court’s most direct comment on the power to quarantine arose in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, a case from Louisiana, when the court considered a broad quarantine order, not unlike some of the quarantine orders our state leaders have considered over the last few weeks. Louisiana had faced outbreaks of Yellow Fever two out of every three summers throughout the 19th century, leading to a very aggressive state stance on the power to quarantine. The order the court considered read: “hereafter in the case of any town, city, or parish of Louisiana being declared in quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers, or others shall be allowed to enter said town, city, or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist.” > > The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, approved that order as constitutional when it was challenged by individuals who attempted to enter the state on a ship from Italy. Even though there was no evidence of symptoms of the fever or other disease on board, the court held that a state was justified to keep people out in order to protect the citizens of the state; that to do so did not violate the Constitution."\* > > [Are quarantine orders constitutional? | Pacific Legal Foundation](https://pacificlegal.org/are-quarantine-orders-constitutional/) That’s far less egregious than what we have now. That’s a quarantine. You keep those people who might have the disease out because we have observed evidence for the past two summers that when you let those guys in, we get an outbreak. Do you think the case would come out the same if Louisiana ordered everyone inside those towns, cities, or parishes to stay in their homes all summer, or no assembly or church all summer? Two justices voted against this more modest proposition. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856/157 "2020-04-28T06:53:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Do you think the case would come out the same if Louisiana ordered everyone inside those towns, cities, or parishes to stay in their homes all summer, or no assembly or church all summer? Two justices voted against this more modest proposition. Irrelevant since people in those towns were not likely to spread yellow fever. Do you disagree with the mandatory quarantining of Typhoid Mary? The situation today is that we all might be Typhoid Mary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-impossible-conditions-before-people-in-california-are-free/851856.md?page=7)