Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

Yet you provide neither specificity nor case law to support your position. Hand-waving, "It's unconstitutional!" doesn't actually make an argument. It has about as much weight as "But I said so!"
 

If you want to wade through case law on helmet laws be prepared to be confused.
To simplify in 1967 the federal government required states to enact helmet laws to qualify certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds. Nearly all states had such laws by the early 1970s, but as the decade went on (with priests and court challenges)states managed to stop the Department of Transportation from denying funds over helmet laws.

Today there are 3 states with NO helmet laws
19 With FULL laws
and 28 with laws that require helmets but only for 21 and under motorcyclists.

As I said, 25 state's top courts have ruled that they are constitutional by state law and SCOTUS has ruled that the Mass law passes muster.

You provided some specificity, Ward. Congratulations.

No court decisions, but a step in the right direction. Clearly, it overwhelmed your ability to format, but not bad.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I’m not sure of your figures but even accepting  them the bottom line is the heavy hand of the federal government once forced 50 states to adopt helmet laws.  Now it is just 28. How did that happen?

[Hairy Lime]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

Can the government mandate you cover your genitals? Or motorcycle helmet? And fine you if you do not?

It already does in many places.

It was a rhetorical question you blathering idiot. If the government has the power to make you wear a helmet for your safety it has the power to make you wear a mask for the public safety. It is not a close or novel proposition.

Then you aren’t paying attention.

Then the right wing web site you poach all your arguments and most of your language from have not explained the issue to you.

LOL!
The right wing site I frequent is the Constitution.

I am reminded of Wanda Gershwitz's comment about apes and philosophy.

[josh]

Does my right to protest mean I have a constitutional  right to spit Hepatitis C laden spittle on you?

Physical threats of harm are not free speech,  they are terrorism.   Masks are mainly effective in containing your viruses.   They protect others, by capturing droplets from your coughs,  sneezes and exhalation.   They help promote public safety,  just as do laws that ban dumping raw sewage or used motor oil.   No Constitutional problem whatsoever.

LOL!
I have no problem with wearing a mask
People who do protest against being told by a government to wear them are not terrorists.

"Protest" is not threatening with a gun.

"Protest" is not threatening bodily harm.

Are you claiming otherwise?

[josh]

Yet you provide neither specificity nor case law to support your position. Hand-waving, "It's unconstitutional!" doesn't actually make an argument. It has about as much weight as "But I said so!"
 

If you want to wade through case law on helmet laws be prepared to be confused.
To simplify in 1967 the federal government required states to enact helmet laws to qualify certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds. Nearly all states had such laws by the early 1970s, but as the decade went on (with priests and court challenges)states managed to stop the Department of Transportation from denying funds over helmet laws.

Today there are 3 states with NO helmet laws
19 With FULL laws
and 28 with laws that require helmets but only for 21 and under motorcyclists.

As I said, 25 state's top courts have ruled that they are constitutional by state law and SCOTUS has ruled that the Mass law passes muster.

You provided some specificity, Ward. Congratulations.

No court decisions, but a step in the right direction. Clearly, it overwhelmed your ability to format, but not bad.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I’m not sure of your figures but even accepting  them the bottom line is the heavy hand of the federal government once forced 50 states to adopt helmet laws.  Now it is just 28. How did that happen?

It happened by repeal in all but two states.

The constitutional challenges focused principally on 2 arguments: (1) helmet statutes violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or state constitutional equivalents by discriminating against motorcycle riders as a class, and (2) helmet statutes constituted an infringement on the motorcyclist’s liberty and an excessive use of the state’s police power under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or similar state provisions. Only the Illinois Supreme Court and the Michigan Appeals Court accepted these arguments. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the helmet laws constituted an infringement on motorcyclists’ rights.

If the evil sought to be remedied by the statute affects public health, safety, morals or welfare, a means reasonably directed toward the achievement of those ends will be held to be a proper exercise of the police power [citations omitted]. However, [t]he legislature may not, of course, under the guise of protecting the public interest, interfere with private rights [citations omitted]. . . . The manifest function of the headgear requirement in issue is to safeguard the person wearing it—whether it is the operator or a passenger—from head injuries. Such a laudable purpose, however, cannot justify the regulation of what is essentially a matter of personal safety.19

The Michigan Appeals Court heard a case brought by the American Motorcycle Association, then the country’s largest organization for motorcyclists, which argued that the state’s motorcycle law violated the due process, equal protection, and right to privacy provisions of the federal constitution. The association cited the US Supreme Court’s birth control decision in Griswold v. Connecticut as authority for establishing a right to privacy. The state attorney general contended that the law did not just concern individual rights and was intended to promote public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, the state argued that it had an interest in the “viability” of its citizens and could pass legislation “to keep them healthy and self-supporting.” The Appeals Court, however, countered that “this logic could lead to unlimited paternalism” and found the statute unconstitutional.20 The court also rejected the claim that the state’s power to regulate the highways provided the basis for imposing helmet use.

There can be no doubt that the State has a substantial interest in highway safety . . . but the difficulty with adopting this as a basis for decision is that it would also justify a requirement that automobile drivers wear helmets or buckle their seat belts for their own protection!21

[/size]

It happened because so-called conservatives hate being conserved and have no objections to using increased public resources when they have accidents.

[Hairy Lime]

Helmets are for personal safety. Masks are for both personal safety and safety of others. Got a counter-parallel you would like to suggest?

I wear a face mask and, if I drove a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet.
But I also recognize that there are other views and people with those views have a right to protest.
You want to criticize the present day protestors as being terrorists when they are not.
A pro-choice advocate argues that a woman has a right to control her body. An anti/helmet motorcyclist argues he has the right to guard his own head.

Civil disobedience highlights the moral wrong of laws, not their unconstitutionality.  Which was what you were arguing, no matter how much you typically try to switch points. Requiring someone to wear a helmet  y law.poses the same Constitutional issue as masks. And have uniformly been upheld. Like.speedimits, seat belt laws and public nuisance laws.

[josh]

[REDSTATEWARD]

Does my right to protest mean I have a constitutional  right to spit Hepatitis C laden spittle on you?

Physical threats of harm are not free speech,  they are terrorism.   Masks are mainly effective in containing your viruses.   They protect others, by capturing droplets from your coughs,  sneezes and exhalation.   They help promote public safety,  just as do laws that ban dumping raw sewage or used motor oil.   No Constitutional problem whatsoever.

LOL!
I have no problem with wearing a mask
People who do protest against being told by a government to wear them are not terrorists.

"Protest" is not threatening with a gun.

"Protest" is not threatening bodily harm.

Are you claiming otherwise?

You claimed they were terrorists.
They were not.

[Hairy Lime]

Does my right to protest mean I have a constitutional  right to spit Hepatitis C laden spittle on you?

Physical threats of harm are not free speech,  they are terrorism.   Masks are mainly effective in containing your viruses.   They protect others, by capturing droplets from your coughs,  sneezes and exhalation.   They help promote public safety,  just as do laws that ban dumping raw sewage or used motor oil.   No Constitutional problem whatsoever.

LOL!
I have no problem with wearing a mask
People who do protest against being told by a government to wear them are not terrorists.

They are if they use violence or the threat of violence in pursuit of their point. You have the Constitional right to argue for universal Islam too. Terrorism is in the manner of the message, not the message itself.

As an aside, my clumsy typing and spell check turned one phrase above into Vienna or the threat of Vienna. Which will be my fourth novel if I ever get around to writing the first three.

[Yankguy1]

It's pretty enlightened of those "fascist" Governors to put up with those protests

[REDSTATEWARD]

Helmets are for personal safety. Masks are for both personal safety and safety of others. Got a counter-parallel you would like to suggest?

I wear a face mask and, if I drove a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet.
But I also recognize that there are other views and people with those views have a right to protest.
You want to criticize the present day protestors as being terrorists when they are not.
A pro-choice advocate argues that a woman has a right to control her body. An anti/helmet motorcyclist argues he has the right to guard his own head.

Civil disobedience highlights the moral wrong of laws, not their unconstitutionality.  Which was what you were arguing, no matter how much you typically try to switch points. Requiring someone to wear a helmet  y law.poses the same Constitutional issue as masks. And have uniformly been upheld. Like.speedimits, seat belt laws and public nuisance laws.

Nice dance.
Helmet laws, speed limits,  Nuisancce laws etc are distractions for you.  But all of them were passed with full hearings in committees, law department review, debates, and votes from the legislative branches.
Not so with co-vid-19 regulations where all were declared by the executive branch of a municipality or state government. Despite good intentions the lockdowns are hurting a lot of people and the idea the cure can be worse than the disease is now very credible. Why anyone should be surprised that protests would ultimately rise up is beyond me. The protesters though are being demonized.
That’s too bad. But responsible governments have not missed their message 

[bankshot1]

Yup lets have months of hearings as people are dieing.

One side believes in facts and science and data

and one side believes that

pick one or several

1-this was a hoax
2-this will miraculously go away by itelf
3-drinking Clorox will kill the virus
4-their right to a haircut or a tatoo supercedes my right to live 

or the Govenors can act lawfully and following guidelines set out by the Federal Pandemic Task Force, to protect the citizens of their states as they best see fit.

Red got his tax cut now he wants his manicure and pedicure and if people have to die, that's capitalism at work.

Fuck him.

 

[kidcarter8]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-vice-president-selection-echoes-fdr-1944-victor-davis-hanson

[kidcarter8]

Bank how are you going to die if I get a hair cut?   Take us through that.

[Hairy Lime]

Helmets are for personal safety. Masks are for both personal safety and safety of others. Got a counter-parallel you would like to suggest?

I wear a face mask and, if I drove a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet.
But I also recognize that there are other views and people with those views have a right to protest.
You want to criticize the present day protestors as being terrorists when they are not.
A pro-choice advocate argues that a woman has a right to control her body. An anti/helmet motorcyclist argues he has the right to guard his own head.

Civil disobedience highlights the moral wrong of laws, not their unconstitutionality.  Which was what you were arguing, no matter how much you typically try to switch points. Requiring someone to wear a helmet  y law.poses the same Constitutional issue as masks. And have uniformly been upheld. Like.speedimits, seat belt laws and public nuisance laws.

Nice dance.
Helmet laws, speed limits,  Nuisancce laws etc are distractions for you.  But all of them were passed with full hearings in committees, law department review, debates, and votes from the legislative branches.
Not so with co-vid-19 regulations where all were declared by the executive branch of a municipality or state government. Despite good intentions the lockdowns are hurting a lot of people and the idea the cure can be worse than the disease is now very credible. Why anyone should be surprised that protests would ultimately rise up is beyond me. The protesters though are being demonized.
That’s too bad. But responsible governments have not missed their message

The protesters are being demonized for good reason. And Administrative Law is not Constitutional law.

[barton]

Bank how are you going to die if I get a hair cut?   Take us through that.

If you don't grasp the concept of R number,  aka PtP spread, then about half of the science info posted here has been wasted on you.   Or you just don't read.