May 8, 2020 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm #1858805
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.May 8, 2020 1:24 pm at 1:24 pm #1858820JosephParticipant
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?May 8, 2020 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #1858840RedlegParticipant
” 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.May 8, 2020 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #1858848
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.May 8, 2020 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1858863
@Redleg, n0m is a teen with no real life experience and no grasp of law, I would not take his comments seriously.May 8, 2020 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1858883
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.May 8, 2020 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1858884
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.May 8, 2020 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #1858907
n0m, I will answer you in 15 years when you are no longer a teen with a teen state of mindMay 9, 2020 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #1858984
Excellent! Fifteen years should be enough time to prep an answer for anything. But, hindsight may render your arguments unreasonable.May 9, 2020 10:38 pm at 10:38 pm #1858992
Interesting the Court of Appeal in the 6th circuit came down with a ruling on Friday afternoon allowing unlimited access to houses of worship so long as they maintain social distancing, this is the highest level of review so far.
PS n0m when I was a teen I thought I knew all the answers and as the years past I saw how little I knew, nothing personal its just part of growing up.May 10, 2020 12:05 am at 12:05 am #1858997
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.May 10, 2020 8:18 am at 8:18 am #1859039
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.May 10, 2020 9:16 am at 9:16 am #1859054JosephParticipant
Avi, why are you currently taking US law courses considering that you live outside the good ‘ole USA?May 10, 2020 10:17 am at 10:17 am #1859066
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.May 10, 2020 2:10 pm at 2:10 pm #1859143
n0m, are you asking out of the genuine desire to understand what is being discussed or do you want to give your opinion?May 10, 2020 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1859301
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.)May 10, 2020 9:12 pm at 9:12 pm #1859314GadolhadorahParticipant
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.May 10, 2020 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1859338
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.May 11, 2020 1:12 am at 1:12 am #1859380
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).May 11, 2020 1:25 am at 1:25 am #1859382
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).May 11, 2020 9:05 am at 9:05 am #1859460CTLAWYERParticipant
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.May 11, 2020 9:07 am at 9:07 am #1859459CTLAWYERParticipant
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.May 12, 2020 10:24 am at 10:24 am #1859871
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.”May 15, 2020 2:06 am at 2:06 am #1860962
After what happened last night, some people need to be reminded that human dignity precedes human rights.May 17, 2020 12:27 am at 12:27 am #1861292
But we need to sue the NJ Governor to maintain our rights!May 17, 2020 10:17 am at 10:17 am #1861333
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.May 17, 2020 10:20 am at 10:20 am #1861362
Not looking to good for Gov.. Murphy, this is the 5th federal court to rule against the state:, state does not the plan to appeal:
A federal judge in North Carolina on Saturday sided with conservative Christian leaders and blocked the enforcement of restrictions that Gov. Roy Cooper ordered affecting indoor religious services during the coronavirus pandemic.
The order from Judge James C. Dever III came days after two Baptist churches, a minister and a Christian revival group filed a federal lawsuit seeking to immediately block enforcement of rules covering religious services within the Democratic governor’s executive orders. Dever agreed with the plaintiffs, who argued that the limits violate their rights to worship freely and treat churches differently from retailers and other secular activities.May 19, 2020 8:36 am at 8:36 am #1862092
a judge in Oregon threw out the shelter in place rules in that state yesterdayMay 24, 2020 10:33 pm at 10:33 pm #1864250GadolhadorahParticipant
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 gamurMay 25, 2020 8:54 am at 8:54 am #1864345
The last president we had who went to church on a regular basis was Jimmy Carter, Obama never went to church and when he did step foot in one is was the church run by a rabid anti semite.
PS irrelevant to the topic of the lawsuit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.