- This topic has 68 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
On the contrary, there is no constitutional right not to be vaccinated, and a momentary jab is hardly a serious hardship. It makes perfect sense that the states’ police power includes it. Nobody disputes that the states are entitled to impose reasonable safety regulations i — but they may not do so at the expense of any constitutionally protected right. The bill of rights has no escape clause for emergencies.
Milhouse, hypothetically, if the only way to stop a pandemic or other literally dire life-and-death emergency, the government could not suspend a constitutional right, say for example, the First Amendment right of the people peaceably to assemble?
” We are better served the less they have to parse their directives to address personal freedoms. My freedoms could wait for better times.”
n0m, that’s very dangerous thinking. The very idea of abrogating or limiting Constitutionally guaranteed rights simply to make things a bit easier for the Government, time of crisis or not, is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. Slippery slope? It’s a damned avalanche! Your freedoms can wait? They may be waiting a long time.Joseph, the government cannot suspend the constitution, ever. And there is nothing in the constitution allowing for the suspension of any rights, except habeas corpus and the third amendment. Congress (not the president) can suspend habeas “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it”, and the third is automatically suspended whenever the USA is at war (which nowadays is almost constantly). I don’t recall any other such provisions in the constitution, so the rest of it applies in all circumstances.
Dear Redleg,
History does not look kindly on your statement. Humanity suffered it’s greatest losses of dignity when the ruling class feels that moral interactions between humans are becoming less feasible. It definitely is not dangerous thinking, because unless you are coming from the “event 201” conversation, we can sue later. Or I could take what is mine by force. This point preceded the Bill Of Rights.Dear Common,
1) So, can we sue for how Congress spends your tax money?
2)Only oneself knows his own obligations.
3)The virus does not care about anyone’s feelings.Dear Common,
Excellent! Fifteen years should be enough time to prep an answer for anything. But, hindsight may render your arguments unreasonable.Dear Common,
I am not interested in the legal angle. It tried to answer what I was asked. I do not understand why someone would back this suit at this point. If people are diligent about how they form their minyan, there will not be any trouble. Do people really believe that we will lose our right to congregate? There is a thread entitled “event 201” for that. It will help my maturity if it can be explained why religious practice freedom of religion are so often conflated.CTL, since when does someone need permission to challenge the constitutionality of a law? Sovereign immunity refers to monetary actions. Disclaimer: I am not licensed to practice law anywhere but I have taken formal courses in Constitutional Law and am now taking video courses.
Avi, why are you currently taking US law courses considering that you live outside the good ‘ole USA?
Avi K, you need standing to bring any suit. If the defendant is not harming you then you have no dispute to bring to the courts. And every civil suit is “monetary”. What else could it be? When you bring a civil suit you are alleging that you have suffered harm and are asking for some amount of damages, even if it’s only $1. What other kind of action do you think exists? The only other one is criminal prosecution, which can only be brought by the executive branch of the government.
Dear Common,
I am lost on the legal stuff. If that is the pastime here, that do not reply. I am genuinely bewildered at the amount of PUBLIC discussion about every infringement about a slight to religious rights. Tenafly, Jackson, The Hamptons, Bloomingdale, and this etc. (We do not allow human rights to be this sacred.) Is the government on anyone’s list of the cause for our lack of growth in Torah and Mitzvos? (And, if the fear is allowing for dangerous precedent please ignore me. I’ve heard enough of that.)If I recall correctly, the ONLY constitutional protections that can be suspended in limited cases are habeas corpus and the Third Amendment (which keeps the Army from forcibly occupying the extra bedroom you reserve for your machatonim (and even then, only in times of “rebellion” or “invasion”. The States may enforce provisions of their own Constitutions on emergency authorities granted to the executive but only if those don’t violate the U.S. Constitution. In many states, those emergency authorities are relatively weak and limited so there has been lots of litigation on whether those governors are violating their own state laws and don’t even implicate federal constitutional guarantees.
G, the third amendment is automatically suspended whenever the USA is at war, which for the last century has been more often than not. For instance it has not been in effect since Sep-11-2001. But this has little or no practical impact since the USA hasn’t had any need to quarter troops on civilians, even in war time. It was something the framers thought might be needed one day, but it never really was.
Charlie, not all coercive methods are permitted. In fact, several judges have struck down corona regulations. Those that are arbitrary, such as dividing businesses between “essential” and “non-essential” are particularly problematic. It is even more problematic when no clear-cut definition is give. This is known as the vagueness doctrine. See Coates v. City of Cincinnati 402 U.S. 611 (1971) and FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc 567 U.S. 239 (2012).
Joseph, it interests me. Moreover, I like to compare their laws with Halacha. In addition, these issues, such as freedom of speech, are very current in Israel. Why do people take courses in Roman law?
Milhouse, that is not necessarily true. Where there is a “chilling effect”. See “Chilling Injuries as a Basis for Standing” by Jonathan R. Siegel (available online).
Sorry, NOT every Civil Suit is for Monetary Damages and alleges a harm which needs redress through compensation.
In the 1970s, CT passed ERA to its own Constitution. Private clubs continued to discriminate in having things such as Mens Grill Rooms or restrictive tee times and tennis court access. Growing up, I remember women could not tee off before 3 PM on Sunday or get a tennis court before noon. No women could tee off pr play golf Wednesday afternoons (doctors’ traditional afternoon off).
Suits were brought against a number of the country clubs seeking injunctive relief to remove the discriminatory rules. No dollars were sought. Because, the women were members of the clubs, they could not file a suit seeking monetary damages, as rules were available before becoming a member and as members they could vote for new officers and changes in the rules.
The women had standing to sue the private clubs and the state courts had jurisdiction because the clubs held liquor licenses and sales tax permits. Their swimming pools and kitchens required inspection and licenses from local health departments.
Injunctive relief was granted and their could be no discrimination against women in the clubs, despite being private. Their licenses, permits and inspections qualified them as places of public accommodation.
@AviK
My statement about needing permission to sue a state was made after reading the OP. Later I was able to read the filing and the suit was not against a State, but seeking injunctive relief against a government official acting in his official capacity.
When one sues claiming a law is Unconstitutional it is not a suit against a State it is seeking relief from a legislative act that is believed to be unconstitutional. The State (through its Attorney General) may be named as a defendant, but in reality one is suing the legislation. If Plaintiff wins, the law or parts of it may be struck down, if Plaintiff wins the law stands.Again, my response was to the words of the OP, when it became clear the OP did NOT post accurately, I withdrew my comments, saying it had been a waste of time to have to explain you can’t sue a state without its permission.
CTL,
1. Iit would seem logical that the defendant is the one being sued. If the legislation is the one being sued it would say “In the Matter of” as with asset seizures. As in your country club example, basically the request is for the state to be ordered not to enforce its law just as it cannot enforce a law that was never passed.
2. I think that you mean ” if Defendant wins the law stands.”After what happened last night, some people need to be reminded that human dignity precedes human rights.
But we need to sue the NJ Governor to maintain our rights!
Common, it is not correct that Judaism is only about obligations. There are many things that are “רשות”, meaning that they are optional. Moreover, in matters of בן אדם לחברו they are two sides of the same coin. For example, if Reuven has an obligation not to cause damage Shimon has the right not to be damaged.
Well as many of you know, the Trumpkopf called a special news conference on Friday to demand that all states allow their churches and shuls be allowed to reopen IMMEDIATELY and if not, he would “OVERRULE” them. He insisted that Americans need “More prayer” and they should come out “THIS SUNDAY” (i.e. today) to exercise their rights to worship. Well, this morning a few minutes before the 10:00 AM mass at St. Johns’ Episcopal Church across Lafayette Square,, the Presidential motorcade with sirens flashing pulled out from the north portico of the White House, down the driveway to Pennsylvania avenue made a right turn on 15th Street but headed south to Virginia and showed up on time for the 10:30 AM mass (aka as tee time) at the Trump National Golf Course. Trump then proceeded to worship unmasked for 3+ hours with an occasional shoulder bump to others in his foursome. The golf Gods obviously didn’t accept his teffilos since his deacons (aka Secret Service agents) were photographed on several occasions following the Trumpkopf into the rough searching for his ill-fated drives that veered off the fairways. Never say this is not a President that leads by example on public health and spiritual issues. A tzadik gamur
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.