They are different, but not in a meaningful sense. How about this:
It is 2040 and DUI deaths have risen a shocking 78%. The new generation is just not taking the DUI laws seriously. There is slaughter on our highways, a “pandemic” if you will. We are “at war.”
All I am asking for is a very modest temporary “emergency” measure that allows police to stop any or every car and force the driver to take a field sobriety test. Failure to take the test will result in a $500 fine and/or six months in jail. This power only lasts until the temporary emergency is over, which we will define as going back to 2020 levels.
I can’t do that you say? For my authority I cite Raveman v. Ultravires decided in 2020 which states that during times of emergency, when lives are at stake, I can suspend constitutional rights for a limited duration. All of these hicks out there complaining about their “rights” are just being selfish. They don’t care if people die, so to hell with them. Your response counselor?
Again with the “scientific illiterates.” That allows you to hand waive the right away because you believe it is silly to begin with.
The rest of your post is simply dangerous propaganda. Do you consider the ramifications of what you suggest? Sure, we have the right to assemble, just not in person and only if a cop thinks it is okay, because after all we can’t trespass or block a highway exit (like those have anything at all to do with what is being asserted).
What is left of the right if the government can so thoroughly destroy it through regulation? I’ll bet that your side would be the first to howl in protest if the government treated the purported right to an abortion so flippantly, say by requiring a permit or a license to get an abortion.
Also, as I have said before, this is nothing like any historical power of quarantine. Quarantine powers apply to known sick people or those who have been exposed to known sick people. Never in history has it applied to absolutely everyone on the theory that they might catch the disease and then might pass it on. That is wholly so far removed from any historical quarantine that people need to quit using the word. It is a wholesale lockdown of the entire population, not a quarantine.
You can’t catch “DUI” by shaking someone’s hands or kissing them or breathing the same air, you can’t mow down the coronavirus with a machine gun, rifle or pistol…and it would probably be a bit over the top to do the same to drunk drivers.
First, if you don’t stop telling me what my position is, and getting it wrong every time, I’m going to start reporting your posts.
Second, I’m not advocating some sooper-seeekrit power of elected leaders to claim emergency powers when people are dying. That is a fiction made up by you that you are assigning to me. Every state, and the Federal government, has laws regarding what can happen when a communicable disease threatens the state, locality, or nation. It doesn’t fucking apply to drunk driving.
Third, just to beat this dead horse, drunk driving isn’t a fucking virus or biological scourge. It isn’t smallpox. It isn’t the flu. It isn’t COVID. From my googling, there’s enough case law on this that you, as an attorney, should know about it.
Report my posts? Where did I misrepresent your position? I haven’t imputed any position to you. All I am saying is that if we accept your position regarding emergency powers WRT this virus, then by applying rules generally which the law must do, it is difficult to see how it cannot be imputed to other things which cause harm. If you feel the need, the report the post. I’ll be happy to hear from a mod if I am doing something wrong and will stop doing it…but I don’t see anything I did wrong.
As I have said, I am an attorney, and I have read case law and I study history. Government (even free government) does have an extraordinary power of quarantine. I’ve stated above why this is not a quarantine. Further, all previous states of emergency have been tailored to the area effected, not a general “everywhere.”
No, this virus is not DUI or terrorism or anything else. All I am saying is that you cannot put an asterisk on this and say that the same general principles you are using here cannot apply elsewhere. Because it is trivially easy for everyone to put their own asterisk. I’m sure MADD would put an asterisk on DUI, for example.
This is fun, let’s try my old favorite-
If Covid had a 99% death rate, would you agree that emergency measures like we are seeing now would be necessary?
Cause if you don’t, you’re a dangerous ideologue, and sane people can discount anything you say. And If you would agree, then the only thing we’re arguing about is the acceptable death toll.
Youve said several times that if “my side” prevails in Ravenman v UltraVires, the government can shut down society to curb drunk driving. I have specifically told you many times that this is wrong, and you persist in assigning me a position that is contrary to what I have clearly stated.
See?
MADD isn’t the government, nor hVe they advocated shutting down commerce. Can you please, please, return to the land of reality and stop making fictitious and obviously false arguments?
We put asterisks on things all the time. You admit that homicide in self-defense is no crime - that’s a pretty obvious asterisk. If we can use the low to determine that shooting down an intruder is not legally the same as shooting down a child at Sandy Hook, then we can also determine that pandemics are not drunk driving.
Yes, of course. I’m not saying the Constitution is a suicide pact. Clearly if we were faced with a situation far beyond anything the founders comprehended, the yes, we create a new foundational understanding.
But this isn’t it. The founders knew of pandemics, and ones with a far, far higher death rate than this one.
I have not argued in this thread or anywhere else that the hypo would be shutting down society to prevent drunk driving. I never suggested that you supported any such thing.
It’s been said that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” If that phrase isn’t applicable in the present circumstance, it’s hard to imagine a situation where it would be.
If your freedom to get a haircut or whatever puts total strangers at risk, then yeah, I’d put my right to life ahead of your right to liberty.
Great, so, we’re in agreement. How high a death toll are you prepared to accept before restrictions are appropriate? Because I think that the demonstrated danger of covid is plenty to justify the current restrictions. 50%? 20? 10?
And don’t give me that it would be ok for the founding fathers stuff. They were fine with all kinds of things that would be anathema today, and horrified by stuff that we take for granted. We’ve evolved, and you can’t make direct comparisons and expect to get workable policy.
Yeah, in the part you quoted I posed the hypo of having the power to stop all drivers and force them to take a sobriety test. Nothing about shutting everything down to prevent DUI; the Constitutional rights that were suspended was the freedom not to be stopped at will by the cops or to take a sobriety test.
And nothing in my comments said that you supported that or any more intrusive action. The case of Ravenman v. Ultravires is this immediate debate we are having in this thread.
If I worded my comments inartfully, it was not my intention to impute anything to you. I apologize if my words were inartfully stated so as to give you the impression I was doing so.
It is the “founding fathers stuff.” That is what our society is based upon. We have had pandemics before, so the Constitution should control. If we have an alien invasion from Mars, then that was something the founders didn’t anticipate and everything is out the window.
It is not a percentage game. The founders were aware of the Black Death in England yet they still chose not to limit the free assembly and speech clauses as they limited the habeas clause.
To be clear. I do not support a person attending church at this time or assembling in public for nearly any purpose. People who do that are stupid. But I fear a government powerful enough to arrest those people far more than I do the stupid people.
This “evolving” Constitution has been a source of contention between conservative and liberals, but at least so far it has been used to expand rights instead of contracting them. Not so anymore.
First, thank you for that clarification. It is gracious to offer this apology, and I thank you for doing so.
Now back to the hand-to-hand combat!
If you’re talking about returning to mass checkpoints for DUI, which I believe may be ruled illegal already (they did them in DC for a while and then stopped, along with other strong arm tactics) then I’m even more puzzled by why you think drunk driving laws have anything at all to do with what’s happening now with CV.
I mean, just because it’s lawful to have an abortion doesn’t mean that you can embezzle funds from your workplace. That’s the degree to which I read your non sequtir.
A quick google says the infant mortality rate in 1800 was 43%. So by your logic, if a disease or pollution or whatever causes the rate to spike now, it’s not a real emergency because if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s fine for us.
I say feh, what a ridiculous idea. The constitution and our government endures because it is flexible, and the basic premises are timeless. We, however, need to sweat the details.
Incorrect. Science works (fitfully, sure, but eventually) and belief doesn’t. Faith-healers and their followers are demonstrably scientific illiterates. They can’t build alt.realities. Hey, the theory of gravity is only a theory! If I jump from a high window, faith will keep me aloft! That’s the mindset at work - if they jump, Gawd will save them. Right.
Incorrect. Have you really claimed to be an attorney?
Yes. Have you really claimed to be an attorney?
You claim fundamental rights. Courts disagree with you. Have you really claimed to be an attorney? But don’t believe me. Try to cross a police line and see what happens.
Strawman. Pregnancy is not contagious.
Are police blocking you from leaving your house? That’s lockdown. Do civilian vehicles still roll your streets? Then it’s not lockdown. Is the entire population (except police) confined to quarters? That’s quarantine. Are most civilian employees still at work? Then it’s not a general quarantine. But again, argue with a judge, not me. Have you really claimed to be an attorney?
Churches were doing drive-thru confessions before Easter.
There has also been drive-in church services in parking lots/fields. And people were ticketed by the police, even though the church goers remained in their own cars.
Anyone who thinks that the founding fathers would be fine with allowing people to die of an epidemic disease in the name of liberty should spend some time reading about their approach to smallpox (.pdf).
Benjamin Franklin, who had a son who died of smallpox, regretted for the rest of his life that he did not allow him to be inoculated. He heavily promoted inoculation, writing a pamphlet that outlined the statistics of deaths with and without inoculation. Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were inoculated – Jefferson even gave vaccine to Lewis and Clark to give to the Indians.
During the siege of Boston there was a smallpox outbreak. George Washington refused to allow his troops to come into contact with anyone leaving Boston. In 1777, he required the entire army to be inoculated, some in secret to avoid a negative public reaction
That these men, who were so supportive of using a scientific approach to fighting disease, even if it involved going against public sentiment, would oppose any available measures recommended by the scientific and health experts seems ridiculous to me. I have no doubt that they would be standing behind the recommendations of the CDC, the WHO and other medical organizations, and basing their response on the scientific data, even where it came into conflict with Constitutional principles.
