Vaccine

Argument by assertion. Haven't we discussed this already?
Liar & cheater Espola. On here protecting what you think you own with power & control. Wow, what a loser on a soccer forum with no kids. You must have something to protect, right loser?
 
You so are EOTL man, or his otherwise his clone. EXACT SAME SCHTICK.

I've laid out my case for why Newsom left the emergency order in place and why the counties authority is limited. I hear your argument but I disagree with it. It's a reasonable one...I simply disagree for the reasons I outlined, but I tend to be a strict constructionalist while you clearly are not.

As to the federal/county distinction, you were the one that pointed out the inconsistency. I was trying to explain it. The federal government only has powers which were not delegated to it by the states. The federal government is limited in scope. The states have the remainder of the powers reserved to them. As to their relationship to the counties, that's a matter of state law and the state constitutions (which as you know, in California, are much easier to amend than the federal constitution). The state delegated certain powers to the federal government....the state delegated certain powers to the county (and is free to change that delegation to the extent they are permitted under their constitution) but ultimately it is all about the states.

I haven't heard a denial you are EOTL. Same language, same schtick, same MO, same quasi legal understanding. If you aren't him, feel free to explain who you are and what brings you to a soccer forum. Except for the most severely dysfunctional of us, we don't generally speak to each other that. It's usually all: "I hear your view and I respect that, but here's why you are wrong_____". What brings you to a soccer forum? What's the association with Golden Gate....my bro taught there for a while?

Otherwise, EOTL is the only person I've ever blocked on these forums and I have no desire to relive that relationship. Even espola is better (at least he's funny and makes me laugh)
 
You so are EOTL man, or his otherwise his clone. EXACT SAME SCHTICK.

Where is the authority that says a county cannot implement a mask or vaccine mandate unless Newsom has declared a state of emergency, as you claimed?

Where is the statute or case that says Health and Safety Code 120175 only allows a county to burn livestock and applies apparently only to measles, but does not allow a local health agency to implement mask or vaccine mandates in a pandemic without a state of emergency being declared?

How does your "analysis" of the US Constitution have anything to do with the extent to which California can, or in this case did, delegate authority to local jurisdictions to implement mask or even vaccine mandates?

The only schtick is that you keep lying and personally attacking those who definitively prove that you are lying. Are you going to start talking bs about "natural order" again since actual laws and how governments actually work are beyond your comprehension?
 
Where is the authority that says a county cannot implement a mask or vaccine mandate unless Newsom has declared a state of emergency, as you claimed?

Where is the statute or case that says Health and Safety Code 101085 only allows a county to burn livestock and applies apparently only to measles, but does not allow a local health agency to implement mask or vaccine mandates in a pandemic without a state of emergency being declared?

How does your "analysis" of the US Constitution have anything to do with the extent to which California can, or in this case did, delegate authority to local jurisdictions to implement mask or even vaccine mandates?

The only schtick is that you keep lying and personally attacking those who definitively prove that you are lying. Are you going to start talking bs about "natural order" again since actual laws and how governments actually work are beyond your comprehension?

Again, your quasi understanding is showing or you'd know that law isn't just as easy as the statute doesn't say the it exactly or there isn't a case on point.

The US Constitution question is a separate question (you had asked 2).

Again, you are dodging. Your failure to deny you are EOTL or explain who you are, coupled with overly hostile and somewhat bipolar personality, points to you being EOTL.
 
I've laid out my case for why Newsom left the emergency order in place and why the counties authority is limited. I hear your argument but I disagree with it. It's a reasonable one...I simply disagree for the reasons I outlined, but I tend to be a strict constructionalist while you clearly are not.

As to the federal/county distinction, you were the one that pointed out the inconsistency. I was trying to explain it. The federal government only has powers which were not delegated to it by the states. The federal government is limited in scope. The states have the remainder of the powers reserved to them. As to their relationship to the counties, that's a matter of state law and the state constitutions (which as you know, in California, are much easier to amend than the federal constitution). The state delegated certain powers to the federal government....the state delegated certain powers to the county (and is free to change that delegation to the extent they are permitted under their constitution) but ultimately it is all about the states.

I haven't heard a denial you are EOTL. Same language, same schtick, same MO, same quasi legal understanding. If you aren't him, feel free to explain who you are and what brings you to a soccer forum. Except for the most severely dysfunctional of us, we don't generally speak to each other that. It's usually all: "I hear your view and I respect that, but here's why you are wrong_____". What brings you to a soccer forum? What's the association with Golden Gate....my bro taught there for a while?

Otherwise, EOTL is the only person I've ever blocked on these forums and I have no desire to relive that relationship. Even espola is better (at least he's funny and makes me laugh)

Where is the statute, regulation, or case that says H&S Code section 120175 does not allow a county to implement a mask mandate even without a state of emergency being declared? It sounds like your answer to everything when you have no legal support whatsoever is to claim "strict construction". But as you should be aware if you were actually a lawyer, strict construction requires a judge to apply only the text as written, yet here you are claiming we should ignore the text as it is written and instead limit it to crap like burning livestock and the measles although the statute says nothing about either of those things. You are making the exact opposite of a strict construction argument. You are claiming that H&S Code 120175 should be limited by the same penumbra nonsense that you presumably complain about in Roe v. Wade.

You can't even get "strict construction" right. That's just the phrase that people like yourself who have no idea what they're talking about use as a dog whistle when they aren't getting what they want.
 
Well, Scotland is still part of the UK, so yeah.
I find war a very weird metaphor to assert individualism.

Armies are not collections of isolated people, each doing whatever they please.

It works in fiction. But in the real world, an individualist soldier is rogue. Less like Braveheart and more like Heart of Darkness.
 
I find war a very weird metaphor to assert individualism.

Armies are not collections of isolated people, each doing whatever they please.

It works in fiction. But in the real world, an individualist soldier is rogue. Less like Braveheart and more like Heart of Darkness.
Elitist!
 
Where is the statute, regulation, or case that says H&S Code section 120175 does not allow a county to implement a mask mandate even without a state of emergency being declared? It sounds like your answer to everything when you have no legal support whatsoever is to claim "strict construction". But as you should be aware if you were actually a lawyer, strict construction requires a judge to apply only the text as written, yet here you are claiming we should ignore the text as it is written and instead limit it to crap like burning livestock and the measles although the statute says nothing about either of those things. You are making the exact opposite of a strict construction argument. You are claiming that H&S Code 120175 should be limited by the same penumbra nonsense that you presumably complain about in Roe v. Wade.

You can't even get "strict construction" right. That's just the phrase that people like yourself who have no idea what they're talking about use as a dog whistle when they aren't getting what they want.
Elitist!
 
Where is the statute, regulation, or case that says H&S Code section 120175 does not allow a county to implement a mask mandate even without a state of emergency being declared? It sounds like your answer to everything when you have no legal support whatsoever is to claim "strict construction". But as you should be aware if you were actually a lawyer, strict construction requires a judge to apply only the text as written, yet here you are claiming we should ignore the text as it is written and instead limit it to crap like burning livestock and the measles although the statute says nothing about either of those things. You are making the exact opposite of a strict construction argument. You are claiming that H&S Code 120175 should be limited by the same penumbra nonsense that you presumably complain about in Roe v. Wade.

You can't even get "strict construction" right. That's just the phrase that people like yourself who have no idea what they're talking about use as a dog whistle when they aren't getting what they want.

Wow, not even a denial. Reason I'm insistent upon it before I engage you is because EOTL crossed a line with me and attacked my kids. I'm not prepared to engage with you in the absence of knowing you aren't, since I strongly suspect you are.
 
Wow, not even a denial. Reason I'm insistent upon it before I engage you is because EOTL crossed a line with me and attacked my kids. I'm not prepared to engage with you in the absence of knowing you aren't, since I strongly suspect you are.

You were perfectly fine engaging me until you ran out of things to say. This is just an excuse to avoid that you are wrong.

The California Constitution says "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws".

Using your "strict construction" of the California Constitution that you apparently never knew existed, can you please "strictly construe" this language in a way that establishes that a city or county cannot implement an ordinance with a mask mandate unless an emergency declaration has been declared? Does "all" now mean "all but mask mandates unless the Governor declares a state of emergency"? Does "make" now mean "can't make"? Does the plain language "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances" suddenly mean "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances other than mask mandates when a state of emergency declared"?

You have zero idea what you are talking about. You had no idea that the California Constitution dictates what a county may or may not do. Instead you are babbling nonsense about the US Constitution.
 
I've laid out my case for why Newsom left the emergency order in place and why the counties authority is limited. I hear your argument but I disagree with it. It's a reasonable one...I simply disagree for the reasons I outlined, but I tend to be a strict constructionalist while you clearly are not.

As to the federal/county distinction, you were the one that pointed out the inconsistency. I was trying to explain it. The federal government only has powers which were not delegated to it by the states. The federal government is limited in scope. The states have the remainder of the powers reserved to them. As to their relationship to the counties, that's a matter of state law and the state constitutions (which as you know, in California, are much easier to amend than the federal constitution). The state delegated certain powers to the federal government....the state delegated certain powers to the county (and is free to change that delegation to the extent they are permitted under their constitution) but ultimately it is all about the states.

I haven't heard a denial you are EOTL. Same language, same schtick, same MO, same quasi legal understanding. If you aren't him, feel free to explain who you are and what brings you to a soccer forum. Except for the most severely dysfunctional of us, we don't generally speak to each other that. It's usually all: "I hear your view and I respect that, but here's why you are wrong_____". What brings you to a soccer forum? What's the association with Golden Gate....my bro taught there for a while?

Otherwise, EOTL is the only person I've ever blocked on these forums and I have no desire to relive that relationship. Even espola is better (at least he's funny and makes me laugh)

Just checking in -- I'm not EOTL either.
 
You were perfectly fine engaging me until you ran out of things to say. This is just an excuse to avoid that you are wrong.

The California Constitution says "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws".

Using your "strict construction" of the California Constitution that you apparently never knew existed, can you please "strictly construe" this language in a way that establishes that a city or county cannot implement an ordinance with a mask mandate unless an emergency declaration has been declared? Does "all" now mean "all but mask mandates unless the Governor declares a state of emergency"? Does "make" now mean "can't make"? Does the plain language "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances" suddenly mean "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances other than mask mandates when a state of emergency declared"?

You have zero idea what you are talking about. You had no idea that the California Constitution dictates what a county may or may not do. Instead you are babbling nonsense about the US Constitution.

That was before I realized you are likely EOTL. I even smiled at first because of the Golden Gate reference...wondered if you might be one of bros former students. With every step you take, the only thing you are doing is convincing me more and more you are in fact EOTL, which is why I'm no longer engaging you on the merits. Same bipolar frenzy, same angry attacking rhetoric, same quasi legal understanding, same look at me I'm a legal scholar mentality. It's a bullseye, particularly given there's been no denial....you seem to have the same clock, BTW, that EOTL had...something about access to a library computer IIRC.

There are 3 possibilities, in descending order of probabilities: 1) you are EOTL (in which case goodbye), 2) you are a colleague but are having a severely rough time (something is going on....full bipolar mode or something...again we don't speak to each other this way)....if so, please be aware the bar organization has some resources available for people that are having a hard time...pm me and I can point you to some resources and I'm happy to help in any way I can, 3) this is just you (perhaps maybe even a law student) and are just having a real hard time expressing yourself without the hostility....in which case please fill me in, colleague to colleague...what brings you here...let's have a friendly chat, get to know each other, and we can resume on amicable grounds now that we know each other colleague to colleague....pm me if you'd like to do it privately.

Otherwise, later and blocked.
 
Back
Top