http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nyc-bar-operator-the-1st-person-arrested-...

 So I've heard this is "Unconstitutional" and that the US and State Government can not stop business owners from running their business.  This is the first one, so claims of this happening prior are either inaccurate, or NYPD's public reporting is inaccurate.

 Given there were no precautions in the US Constitution for pandemics I'd say a direct reference is not possible.  However businesses can be shut down for many reasons, such as health code violations, not paying taxes, not having a liquor license, serving alcohol to minors, unsafe working conditions etc.  Are these also unconstitutional?

 What part, if any, of arresting a bar owner in violation of a legal order to close, is unconstitutional?

"I bet the bar or restaurant owner who is going to loose his business and home will have a different point of view."

 I'm sure they will.

 But having a point of view does't make it so.  If that bar owner's opinion was that children can drink alcohol that doesn't make it legal.

 If it's not unconstitutional to close a bar for selling liquor to children, or for failing to sanitize their tap-lines making people sick, why is it unconstitutional to stop them from creating a place for people to congregate thus spreading a virus?  

 What makes the closure of establishments for public safety "unconstitutional"?  I would think the laws that allow it to happen would have been challenged already.  For instance in Humphrey v. Cady the US Supreme Court made this ruling:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/504/

 
 I'm just not seeing why this public safety issue is unconstitutional when others aren't.

"Not True. That person was NOT the first !"

 Who was the first in NY?

 Also, what part of his arrest is unconstitutional?


"Now did the, 'No liquor license', come from the state pulling the license, because of the new order, or for another reason ?"

 Not sure, but if the state suspended licenses as part of the order its pretty much the same thing.  Forced closure.

 What part of closing bars is unconstitutional?  What about SARS-COV-2 makes this a Constitutional issue, but serving children, or having unsanitary taps isn't?

 Or is it unconstitutional to close any business for any reason?

Thinking about a bill of rights, correct me if I am wrong...

I don't believe Australia has a formal document, only an interpretation.

Best regards,

Eegore wrote on 03/31/20 at 08:19:51:

 "...Who was the first in NY? ..."

Who said the first was in NY ?

"...is it unconstitutional to close any business for any reason?..."

So in your view, it is perfectly OK to block (something/business) as a waste of scarce resources and a threat to public health during the covid-19 epidemic

Yet it is a crime to:
"... block abortions as a waste of scarce resources and a threat to public health during the covid-19 epidemic ..."

"... what part of his arrest is unconstitutional? ..."

What part of,
"...A federal judge ordered Texas to temporarily stop enforcing its ban on abortions...",
is Constitutional ?

Ya know eegor, every post you are sounding more and more like the tt !

Eegore wrote on 03/31/20 at 08:42:15:



Have you ever read the original unabated texted of the constitition?  For what the founding fathers invisioned, these are all unconsitional.  However, what it has evolved to is another matter.  I am not taking the time to research that.

Best regards,

"Here is a question.
Two Governors, issue a order 'you can't do this' ...,
Both stating the same reason for the order.

Yet one of them is perfectly OK,
and the other one is not.

Why ?"

 I don't think they are both perfectly ok.

 What part of the closing of this one specific bar, In and only in the state of NY, with the exclusion of all other things, to include abortions, is unconstitutional?

 Is there something specific to SARS-COV-2 that makes this public safety order unconstitutional, or is all public safety unconstitutional?

"Have you ever read the original unabated texted of the constitition?

 Yes. I typically use these:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day...


For what the founding fathers invisioned, these are all unconsitional.  

 I partially agree.  I don't think they intended for all acts to be nonpunishable or allowed or there would be no listings of consequence in law of their time.  Everything would be legal, since we would all be free, (Within reason given slavery/women's suffrage etc.) and the Government would have no position to stop a free citizen from doing pretty much anything.  

 I am not sure the Founding Father's, if they had airplanes in their day, would agree to children consuming alcohol and flying planes.  I feel it's possible that certain "rights" such as personal conveyance, would not be universal given those factors.

 I do think however that Constitutional protections apply under quarantines and public orders.  Orders can not be "arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable" since that is in the Constitution protections, but the State orders of public safety aren't.

 So since these orders originate from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, what is your take on that?  Should we act to repeal Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264) and allow communicable disease transfer in the US?

 Would you recommend altering or repeal of 42 U.S.C. ?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title42/html/USCODE-2011-titl...


 In Gibbons v. Ogden there was a lot of clarification regarding Federal influence over States:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1