Some data on Covid-19 and why we're not over reacting...

Ricky Fandango said:
We are all entitled to the Bill of Rights as citizens, rat-spola.
Click to expand...
The law is clear: the government has broad power in a public health emergency to take the steps needed to stop the spread of a communicable disease. In 1905, the Supreme Court declared: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

This is not a new principle. A few years after the end of the Revolutionary War, Philadelphia was isolated to control the spread of yellow fever. By the time the Constitution was drafted and approved, quarantine was already a well-established form of public health regulation. States, as part of their police power, were deemed to have the authority to order quarantines to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. In 1926, the Supreme Court wrote: “it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants.”

 
Imtired said:
Yes.

”The U.S. Supreme Court has long agreed that the states have police powers of this sort. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that the police powers, that "immense mass of legislation," as he put it, "which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the federal government," includes "quarantine laws" and "health laws of every description."
Click to expand...
Really? You sure? That case is about commerce and taxation...
Here's the entire paragraph you gleaned your information from...read carefully.

The acts of Congress, passed in 1796 and 1799,[a] empowering and directing the officers of the general government to conform to, and assist in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of a State, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is undoubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea; and the constitutionality of such laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an acknowledgment that a State may rightfully regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the States; for they do not imply that such laws are an exercise of that power, or enacted with a view to it. On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health laws, are so denominated in the acts of Congress, and are considered as flowing from the acknowledged power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens. But, as it was apparent that some of the provisions made for this purpose, and in virtue of this power, might 206*206 interfere with, and be affected by the laws of the United States, made for the regulation of commerce, Congress, in that spirit of harmony and conciliation, which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments standing in the relation which that of the Union and those of the States bear to each other, has directed its officers to aid in the execution of these laws; and has, in some measure, adapted its own legislation to this object, by making provisions in aid of those of the States. But, in making these provisions, the opinion is unequivocally manifested, that Congress may control the State laws, so far as it may be necessary to control them, for the regulation of commerce.

The act passed in 1803,[a] prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them; from which it is inferred, that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Really? You sure? That case is about commerce and taxation...
Here's the entire paragraph you gleaned your information from...read carefully.

The acts of Congress, passed in 1796 and 1799,[a] empowering and directing the officers of the general government to conform to, and assist in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of a State, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is undoubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea; and the constitutionality of such laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an acknowledgment that a State may rightfully regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the States; for they do not imply that such laws are an exercise of that power, or enacted with a view to it. On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health laws, are so denominated in the acts of Congress, and are considered as flowing from the acknowledged power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens. But, as it was apparent that some of the provisions made for this purpose, and in virtue of this power, might 206*206 interfere with, and be affected by the laws of the United States, made for the regulation of commerce, Congress, in that spirit of harmony and conciliation, which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments standing in the relation which that of the Union and those of the States bear to each other, has directed its officers to aid in the execution of these laws; and has, in some measure, adapted its own legislation to this object, by making provisions in aid of those of the States. But, in making these provisions, the opinion is unequivocally manifested, that Congress may control the State laws, so far as it may be necessary to control them, for the regulation of commerce.

The act passed in 1803,[a] prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them; from which it is inferred, that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.
Click to expand...
Hey look, it's LE, the slowest guy in the class. We will all wait while you catch up . . .
 
Lion Eyes said:
Really? You sure? That case is about commerce and taxation...
Here's the entire paragraph you gleaned your information from...read carefully.

The acts of Congress, passed in 1796 and 1799,[a] empowering and directing the officers of the general government to conform to, and assist in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of a State, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is undoubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea; and the constitutionality of such laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an acknowledgment that a State may rightfully regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the States; for they do not imply that such laws are an exercise of that power, or enacted with a view to it. On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health laws, are so denominated in the acts of Congress, and are considered as flowing from the acknowledged power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens. But, as it was apparent that some of the provisions made for this purpose, and in virtue of this power, might 206*206 interfere with, and be affected by the laws of the United States, made for the regulation of commerce, Congress, in that spirit of harmony and conciliation, which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments standing in the relation which that of the Union and those of the States bear to each other, has directed its officers to aid in the execution of these laws; and has, in some measure, adapted its own legislation to this object, by making provisions in aid of those of the States. But, in making these provisions, the opinion is unequivocally manifested, that Congress may control the State laws, so far as it may be necessary to control them, for the regulation of commerce.

The act passed in 1803,[a] prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them; from which it is inferred, that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.
Click to expand...

Who told you about that paragraph? Haven't you learned by now not to test that source?
 
messy said:
SMH. How did LE's language contradict Imtired's info?
Click to expand...

Wow! We have to give LE some credit for digging up an ancient SCOTUS ruling from 1824 in an attempt to make a point.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 - Supreme Court 1824 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com scholar.google.com

I'm not sure if he is quoting from the winner's argument or the loser's here, or what relevance that has to the discussion at hand.

It is also not clear how LE found out about this case - is he a secret legal scholar?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The law is clear: the government has broad power in a public health emergency to take the steps needed to stop the spread of a communicable disease. In 1905, the Supreme Court declared: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

This is not a new principle. A few years after the end of the Revolutionary War, Philadelphia was isolated to control the spread of yellow fever. By the time the Constitution was drafted and approved, quarantine was already a well-established form of public health regulation. States, as part of their police power, were deemed to have the authority to order quarantines to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. In 1926, the Supreme Court wrote: “it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants.”

Click to expand...

Nice to see that once again you cut n pasted the CCP ordered article sent to you on a " Personal " .gov email...

You are a " good ' Little China troll....

Try free thinking for once....it's obvious you struggled in High School and went straight to Union Labor as opposed
to seeking a higher learning route...
Even Junior College would have helped you sort out some of your MAJOR thinking inadequacies....
 
espola said:
Wow! We have to give LE some credit for digging up an ancient SCOTUS ruling from 1824 in an attempt to make a point.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 - Supreme Court 1824 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com scholar.google.com

I'm not sure if he is quoting from the winner's argument or the loser's here, or what relevance that has to the discussion at hand.

It is also not clear how LE found out about this case - is he a secret legal scholar?
Click to expand...

Unlike you .....he knows how to research....
 
messy said:
Trump is a bummer and all, but the stupid people really do provide daily amusement...

nypost.com

Kentucky sees highest spike in coronavirus cases after lockdown protests

Kentucky experienced its highest single-day spike in coronavirus cases after protests broke out in the state to lift lockdowns, according to reports. Gov. Andy Beshear announced there were 273 new …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

Are YOU stupid ...

Really....ARE YOU THAT STUPID ...

DON'T YOU THINK.....

How can they PROVE there is a SPIKE attributed to " Protesters " with a 4 day lead.....
IF EVERY PROTESTER WAS SYMPTOMATIC AND SPREADING YOU WOULD NOT KNOW
ON SUNDAY.....SO EAT CRAP FOR SPREADING DIS INFORMATION CHINA TROLL !
THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT FEAR MONGERING.
ALL THAT ARTICLE PROVED IS AN INCREASE IN TEST RESULTS ....

THE PROTESTERS HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT....IT"S CALLED " FREEDOM " AND SHITHEADS
LIKE YOU WILL NOT STAND IN OUR WAY..........
 
nononono said:
Are YOU stupid ...

Really....ARE YOU THAT STUPID ...

DON'T YOU THINK.....

How can they PROVE there is a SPIKE attributed to " Protesters " with a 4 day lead.....
IF EVERY PROTESTER WAS SYMPTOMATIC AND SPREADING YOU WOULD NOT KNOW
ON SUNDAY.....SO EAT CRAP FOR SPREADING DIS INFORMATION CHINA TROLL !
THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT FEAR MONGERING.
ALL THAT ARTICLE PROVED IS AN INCREASE IN TEST RESULTS ....

THE PROTESTERS HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT....IT"S CALLED " FREEDOM " AND SHITHEADS
LIKE YOU WILL NOT STAND IN OUR WAY..........
Click to expand...
Did you mean to say "asymptomatic"? As I am quite sure a group of concerned, thoughtful citizens such as the protesters would never have any "symptomatic" individuals out there endangering others and all the people they will come into contact with and all the people those people will come into contact with . . . and on and on and on.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Did you mean to say "asymptomatic"? As I am quite sure a group of concerned, thoughtful citizens such as the protesters would never have any "symptomatic" individuals out there endangering others and all the people they will come into contact with and all the people those people will come into contact with . . . and on and on and on.
Click to expand...


A symptomatic Wed protesters " spread " would not have shown up on Sun.....
Again....schooling = understanding context....
 
nononono said:
A symptomatic Wed protesters " spread " would not have shown up on Sun.....
Again....schooling = understanding context....
Click to expand...
I was simply commenting on the thought that those protesters are deep thinking, mindful people that would never jeopardize others by acting irresponsibly.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I was simply commenting on the thought that those protesters are deep thinking, mindful people that would never jeopardize others by acting irresponsibly.
Click to expand...


You were " simply "....Oh okkk....ko..


https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/152/077/1790365_crop_exact.jpg?w=3072&h=2048&q=75
 
Turns out it's gun groups behind a lot of the re-opening protests.
"Jesus is my Vaccine."
I appreciate the consistency of the stupid people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top