re: Pastor Spell Under House Arrest with Ankle Monitor

quote:

---

Not you in particular, it's rampant everywhere.

---

Considering your post was in reply to me, and I'm a self-professed libertarian, I imagine you can see why I thought you meant it as more directly personal to me

First off, the Founding Fathers didn’t I tend For the bill of rights to apply to the states.

At the time it passes 12/13 states had an established church.

quote:

---

Downvote this post all you want. That’s all you can do though because you can’t refute it.

---

Multiple people in this thread have pointed out Supreme Court supported cases that support state rights during a state of emergency.

Our Forefathers also established the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches to hold each other in check. IMO this is an example of that. Those who disagree that claims it's an infringement have a legal right to challenge it. People have and have been overruled. That's what is being pointed out here.

You can spout all you want about sheep and claiming not listening in history class but some of you come off as you stopped reading anything in history after the Constitution with that logic. You don't have to agree with it, but there's a valid argument on both sides and has long been the debate among those in Constitutional law.

quote:

---

Thanks for making my point, Karen. If it saves just one life...

---

So I'm a Karen because I have to explain things within the breath of Constitutional law to you? Maybe use some of that isolation to read up there, baw.

Yep, that's it. I wasn't taught any of that.

And while getting my JD, I wasn't taught the law, just political indoctrination.

The reality is that riding your motorcycle and talking principle and about what the law should be is different than discussing what the law is. While there's lots in the law I disagree with, and that certainly is appropriate for discussion, it's completely irrelevant when discussing what the law currently is.

To suggest that an inalienable right means that the right itself is without scope or boundaries is flat out incorrect.

quote:

---

Multiple people in this thread have pointed out Supreme Court supported cases that support state rights during a state of emergency.

---

It certainly suppresses the right to assemble which is a founding pillar of this country. I suppose we will see more and more "emergencies." Climate change will be a big one.

Sadly we can declare emergencies to suppress the population over many things we don't really need to. Legal =|=. right.

quote:

---

Freedom of exercise of religion is considered a "fundamental right". In order for the state to limit a fundamental right, it must pass "strict scrutiny". That test is three pronged: First, the state must have a "compelling interest" to limit the right. Second, the limitation must be "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest. Third, the limit must be the "least restrictive" means of meeting that interest.

---

I’m not arguing the legality of the government restricting rights. Yes, the government has given itself legal power to reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of the citizenry. I’m saying I don’t agree with it.

quote:

---

And if it isn't, we should move to debating whether the current status quo passes a strict scrutiny test, which requires the state to have a compelling interest in the limitation of the right, and whether the state has narrowly tailored that limitation to meet said compelling interest

---

Yeah but the non-lawyer Constitutional scholars on Facebook can’t put that in a meme.

quote:

---

I pity you. It’s obvious during your education you were not taught actual American history, and Civics. You’re a victim of the cancer of progressivism that has for decades infected our education system. Instead of reviving an education, you recurved political indoctrination. For that I honestly pity you.

---

I’m on your side of this argument from a conceptual standpoint but this a pretty ridiculous response given the litany of evidence in this thread explaining the legality of recent government actions.

Shitting on someone’s education while ignoring judicial review is a bad look.

Shakespeare was right.