Before I read on, I have to point out that the absurdity of comparing these two events shouldn’t have to be pointed out.
Media says Trump doesn’t have the power to do what he’s doing...
- Thread starter SUPERPOKES
- Start date
Before I read on, I have to point out that the absurdity of comparing these two events shouldn’t have to be pointed out.
Movie theaters, while certainly business free adults should be allowed to do business with, are not specifically protected by the first amendment.
A better comparison would be the only other organizational institution specifically protected by the 1A - the press. They seem free to congregate, go to work, draw paychecks and broadcast or publish their work. Obviously churches are being singled out in terms of First Amendment protections.
They both relate largely to identical underlying Constitutional issues. (Such as the power of the 10th Amendment.) In that manner, the comparison between the two is in no small way, relevant to the discussion.
Can you point to any specifics (statutes, rules. etc.) or are you just making assumptions? Can you identify any states which has exempted the press from their rules? (and is currently holding churches to a different standard?)
Again, I see what I believe are assumptions rather than facts. (Just like you assumed the ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court said something, that upon closer examination was far from the truth.)
I didn’t say you said that. I asked you how long you think it’s justifiable.
The court may not have the luxury of exploring their breaking point before citizens reach theirs.
Maybe he should run that by a lawyer. Or maybe he did? Seemed like a pretty purposeful thing he said.
Hey speaking of lawyers, I’ve noticed anytime I’ve been in court or watched a crime drama, there usually are opposing counsel lawyers, and they eventually become engaged in spirited disagreement over their interpretations of the laws at hand.
I think we should see how this actually plays out.
Last edited:
Yes. Just a minute and I’ll compile my statutes, rules and list of state by state policies regarding church and press. Hang on a sec.
That Wisconsin case was pretty crippling to your central point IMO. But again, not a lawyer.
Not very funny because you leftists suck at humor, but definitely more entertaining than you not knowing that putting your fingers in someone's vagina without their consent is rape. I'm sure the ladies in your house would agree.
There was a smallpox epidemic during the revolutionary war.. chances the framers intended churches, merchants and healthy workers to be shut down and quarantined during future epidemics? I’m guessing not high.
Hollywood,
Honest question: While EVERYTHING was shutdown, applying that order to churches would have fallen under the 10th amendment. However, now that things are re-opening, selectively placing houses of worship at the back of the re-opening line does appear to violate the 1st Amendment. I can't imagine the SC upholding restrictions on Churches from cities and states who've opened liquor stores, beaches, parks, and other public spaces.
Btw, couldn't all this be solved by the President signing an EO stating that Houses of Worship are federally considered as essential businesses, which would then exempt them from all state's orders correct?
Honest question: While EVERYTHING was shutdown, applying that order to churches would have fallen under the 10th amendment. However, now that things are re-opening, selectively placing houses of worship at the back of the re-opening line does appear to violate the 1st Amendment. I can't imagine the SC upholding restrictions on Churches from cities and states who've opened liquor stores, beaches, parks, and other public spaces.
Btw, couldn't all this be solved by the President signing an EO stating that Houses of Worship are federally considered as essential businesses, which would then exempt them from all state's orders correct?
I think the real story here as usual is dumb ol orange dementia patient has effectively manipulated leftists in government and media to defend keeping churches closed.
Another dent in the “brown” and working class voting bases. Great contrast story to “you ain’t black” Biden's clumsy racist massaging.
No, because that power DOES NOT belong to the President (Constitutionally). It belongs to the States.
If you read Article II of the Constitution, the President is simply not empowered with the authority to make such a call.
No, no it wasn't - it DID NOT even begin to address the issues I am discussing. That's why I quoted from it! You keep pointing at it, when it is obvious, you have neither read it, or cannot understand it - it's one of the two as it is in no way "crippling" to my central point, as it does NOT even address any point I raised. The citation and link to the case is above, why don't you actually try reading it?
"It's so plain and obvious it's not even debatable," Kathleen Bergin, a professor at Cornell Law School. "Trump has no authority to ease social distancing, or to open schools or private businesses. These are matters for states to decide under their power to promote public health and welfare, a power guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution."
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/14/8346...l-authority-over-states-now-he-s-backpedaling
Aix-Expert - this is the same point I have been making repeatedly. Under the Constitution - these are powers granted to the States under the 10th Amendment, NOT the Executive in Article II. So no matter what steps Trump takes, he simply doesn't have the authority to override the States!
Fascists
This is punishment not just for opening but for going on Tucker and thumbing his nose at the imperial tyrants.
This is punishment not just for opening but for going on Tucker and thumbing his nose at the imperial tyrants.
Under what authority can he do that? Absent a judges order, I don't see how that is legal at all.
The 10th amendment does not give states the right to thumb their nose at the first amendment. I imagine if the states fail to allow the churches to open then Trump can file a federal injunction for selectively applying the stay at home orders and disproportionately affecting houses of worship.
Then why hasn't he done that? He controls the DOJ, so why haven't they filed for injunctions (or other claims of relief)?
It's because as the Prof from Cornell explained: The President does NOT have Constitutional authority to override the States 10th Amendment Grant of Power. This is an example of dual-sovereignty (Federalism) where the states hold a grant of power to enact laws which it may see fit to protect the health, safety and welfare of its inhabitants. (If you disagree with how the States are handling it, then that is a completely different discussion, but to claim they don't have this power is ridiculous.)
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902); https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2020/68-mm-2020.html (PA Supreme Court, appeal to US Supreme Court reviewed and DENIED;
Aix-xpert. Read the last few pages of the PA case provided above. It gives an explanation of why the state asserting its police powers under the 10th Amendment does NOT run afoul of the 1st Amendment. (SCOTUS could have easily taken this case up, if they believed the PS Supreme Court was wrong in its analysis, but chose not to.) What does that tell you?
Last edited:
You gonna ride that for all its worth accurate or not aren’t you?
When all but a handful of blue & swing states are left doing this, they’ll all be on record as being against the reopening that saved the other states from ruin.
That may be more damaging then losing the legal argument.
Protecting First Amendment trumps (no pun intended) Tenth Amendment.
Maybe the Governors can shut down the newspapers and TV/Radio news to prevent the spread of fear throughout the populace. Or do their 1st amendment protections supersede the other 1st amendment protections?
Read the last few pages of this PA Supreme Court decision, accepted by SCOTUS, and perhaps you can understand why your claim/understanding of Constitutional principles is wrong. They address specifically whether such rules violate the 1st Amendment.
https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2020/68-mm-2020.html
Am I the only one that sees whats going on here?
Trump does not care one bit about you going to church.
This simply a new wedge issue to rally the base. Gotta keep the 90% of evangelicals loyal.
Let's just add this to abortion, guns and gay marriage list.
It has worked and I have to applaud him for it.
Trump does not care one bit about you going to church.
This simply a new wedge issue to rally the base. Gotta keep the 90% of evangelicals loyal.
Let's just add this to abortion, guns and gay marriage list.
It has worked and I have to applaud him for it.
Im sure you are the only one who sees watts going on. Political angles haven’t occurred to anyone else. Probably.
If by rallying the base you mean protecting the rights of Americans who worship, then I say, more power to him! (Literally)
What has he done (specifically) to protect the "rights of Americans who worship" beside utter a few threats, which he knows (or should know) are NOT legal?
Its 1957 and a governor issues an EO banning AA students from attending a high school. Its a states 10th amendment right! But there's that 14th amendment thing about giving equal rights to AA. (This was the INTENT of the authors not the modern crap to equalize immorality etc ...just to give blacks equality that they were being prevented from having)
Eisenhower nationalized the guard and the AA enter the schoolhouse!
Trump sure as h#ll can do the same to protect the 1st amendment rights of the people to exercise their religion and to peaceably assemble. Aint a thing short of SCOTUS overruling him that can counter that.
Libtards heads would explode!.
Eisenhower nationalized the guard and the AA enter the schoolhouse!
Trump sure as h#ll can do the same to protect the 1st amendment rights of the people to exercise their religion and to peaceably assemble. Aint a thing short of SCOTUS overruling him that can counter that.
Libtards heads would explode!.
Eisenhower did so ONLY after the Supreme Court had declared school segregation unconstitutional AND a federal court had ordered Arkansas schools to desegregate.
So...in support of a federal court decision, not in the absence of any such Court finding that the conduct was unconstitutional and on his own accord.
An important distinction....to constitutionalists.
Some people still don’t get it. Saying that a Governor has the right to deny free worship guaranteed by the First Amendment because of the Tenth Amendment is basically saying that the Governor has the power to take away individual constitutional rights and that the federal government has no power to stop it.
I’m telling you, if the President acts against a Governor in the name of protecting individual rights, he has the power to do so! Protection of Individual rights take precedent over all.
I’m telling you, if the President acts against a Governor in the name of protecting individual rights, he has the power to do so! Protection of Individual rights take precedent over all.
