Because I dint write it. Never mind that for years Ive been saying things that are in agreement,, Im Totally allowing someone else to think for me..
God,, you lefties just WISH people like me doont already know these things and live in agreement with them,,
I dont ever see well written arguments from any of you..
Except E,, he actually takes the time to reference what he believes are supporting document that , AFAIK, only he has a staff who read the stuff and give him a rundown on what it says,, And how much of it, Though Appearing to be LAW, is actually the result of malfeasance, under Color of law, and in direct conflict with the Constitution?
Just pop right in with your intellectual, rational assessment any time Row,,


A shining exception is Texas Supreme Court associate Justice Jimmy Blacklock.  In a recent decision, he stated flatly and emphatically for the majority:

“The Constitution is not suspended when the government declares a state of disaster.” In re Abbott, No. 20-0291, 2020 WL 1943226, at *1 (Tex. Apr. 23, 2020). All government power in this country, no matter how well-intentioned, derives only from the state and federal constitutions. Government power cannot be exercised in conflict with these constitutions, even in a pandemic.

In the weeks since American governments began taking emergency measures in response to the coronavirus, the sovereign people of this country have graciously and peacefully endured a suspension of their civil liberties without precedent in our nation’s history. In some parts of the country, churches have been closed by government decree, although Texas is a welcome exception. Nearly everywhere, the First Amendment “right of the people to peaceably assemble” has been suspended altogether. U.S. Const. amend. I. In many places, people are forbidden to leave their homes without a government-approved reason. Tens of millions can no longer earn a living because the government has declared their employers or their businesses “ ‘non-essential.’ ”

Those who object to these restrictions should remember they were imposed by duly elected officials, vested by statute with broad emergency powers, who must make difficult decisions under difficult circumstances. At the same time, all of us—the judiciary, the other branches of government, and our fellow citizens—must insist that every action our governments take complies with the Constitution, especially now. If we tolerate unconstitutional government orders during an emergency, whether out of expediency or fear, we abandon the Constitution at the moment we need it most.

Any government that has made the grave decision to suspend the liberties of a free people during a health emergency should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate—both to its citizens and to the courts—that its chosen measures are absolutely necessary to combat a threat of overwhelming severity. The government should also be expected to demonstrate that less restrictive measures cannot adequately address the threat. Whether it is strict scrutiny or some other rigorous form of review, courts must identify and apply a legal standard by which to judge the constitutional validity of the government’s anti-virus actions. When the present crisis began, perhaps not enough was known about the virus to second-guess the worst-case projections motivating the lockdowns. As more becomes known about the threat and about the less restrictive, more targeted ways to respond to it, continued burdens on constitutional liberties may not survive judicial scrutiny.

Ideally, these debates would play out in the public square, not in courtrooms. No court should relish being asked to question the judgment of government officials who were elected to make difficult decisions in times such as these. However, when constitutional rights are at stake, courts cannot automatically defer to the judgments of other branches of government. When properly called upon, the judicial branch must not shrink from its duty to require the government’s antivirus orders to comply with the Constitution and the law, no matter the circumstances.

More at the link.

I, for one, am not prepared to see the Constitution ignored or abandoned.  I swore an oath to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that oath had (and still has) no expiration date.  By that logic (and it is logical), those who ignore or trash the Constitution in their statist decrees and dictates are its enemies.  That means it's incumbent on me not to merely tolerate, temporarily, their excesses and overreach until courts can rule on the subject - particularly when we can't be sure the courts will rule as the Constitution requires.  Instead of tolerating, I need to take action.  The question is . . . what action?  To take up arms against, and violently resist, the duly and Constitutionally elected government and its officials - whether local, state or national - is by definition a criminal act.  However, it's well in line with the Declaration of Independence, which preceded the Constitution and precipitated the American Revolution.  That's a dynamic tension which may have to be resolved before too long.

I blame a great deal of the inaction of the American people on the abolition of civics education in American schools and colleges.  Even the Atlantic, a very left-wing, progressive source indeed, observed in 2016:

While there surely are many varied causes for the current American political situation, one among those is the relative ignorance of basic American history, scientific, technological knowledge, and what some refer to as “civics” among a large sector of our population. It is testimony to the failure of the country’s education system that a high percentage of the voting-age population is simply ignorant of basic facts—knowledge that is necessary to act reasonably and rationally in the political process.

. . .

James Madison put the current dilemma clearly in focus almost 200 years ago, when he wrote in an 1822 letter to W. T. Barry: “A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” The American people are not doing this today, and the results are evident in the cracks appearing in the country’s democracy.

More at the link. Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

The problem, of course, is that statist administrations don't want people educated in civics.  Their poisonous intrusion into and effective trashing of Constitutional rights couldn't be done if the electorate were more aware of the limitations on their power.  Remove that awareness, and overreach becomes much easier.

So . . . what do we do?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

God forbid that a new civil war should be brewing . . . but I have a feeling in my water that one may be on the horizon.  I will not be ruled as a slave, licking the feet of dictatorial statist masters.  I will not allow my Constitutional rights and liberties to be ignored, trampled or taken away.  That's my bottom line;  and I'm old enough, and have little enough to lose, that I'm willing to insist on it, no matter what the cost.

What's your bottom line?  And how far are you prepared to go to insist on it?

This would be a good start . . . but I don't think it goes far enough.

The 2020 elections in November aren't far away.  Will the American electorate vote for statism, or freedom?  Subjection, or liberty?  We're about to find out.

Peter

"Though Appearing to be LAW, is actually the result of malfeasance, under Color of law, and in direct conflict with the Constitution? "

Present a well written argument on any of those subjects.

Ohh, PISS OFF,, You Tell me where in the Constitution anyone has the power and authority to suspen all of our rights over someones declaration of an emergency..
Why didnt the army just stop the pioneers from heading west? Think of the lives saved?
Exactly where is the authority for anyone to tell me I cant do soething because it crossses the Boundary of THEIR understanding of accepatble risk>?
And how is it you, who have suffered NOTHING financially,,have a darned say in it? Youre one of the pople who should get it,, YOure not intellectually incapable of grasping thes concepts.

Im not seeing setting up traffic rules for the sky in order to avoid planes crashing into each other as somehow inhibiting travel.. Any more than traffic lights inhibit the right to travel,,
Youre claiming theres a right for the government to control the peoples movements, even while that control is destroying their lives,, and I say
Bullshit

"Youre claiming theres a right for the government to control the peoples movements, even while that control is destroying their lives"

 No I am not.

 I am citing actual law, that is used in actual courts, that is implemented by elected officials.

 None of that law, that you won't read but will argue, mentions "rights" of the government at all.  But you would have to read something you don't like for that to apply to any of these conversations.

 My point is claiming it's "illegal" or "unconstitutional" means nothing unless there's legitimate case law to take to court, or the people.  Screaming at the wall does nothing.  Grab a hammer.

"Well, IF that Law youre citing cant be supported by the Constitution, or is in Conflict with the Rights of the People, as Laid out IN the constitution,, then that LAW is Null and void,"

 I agree, except just saying that means nothing.  You would have to read the law provided and present a case, like real precedent, not complaints.

 Read what I have presented, articulate an argument, as you clearly expect from others, and consider using references that exist not analogies or chopped up versions of losing cases.  

 Bottom line is if the argument of "color of law" had any substance to it some lawyer somewhere would have made progress, or some massive legal team from some major corporation, but none of them have.  

 Now this application of law is new and it will take time to see what results from legal challenges.  This idea that one is standing up to tyranny by typing in a forum and walking around without a mask is nonsense.  No law will change based off that.