| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Libertarians demand...
On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
#23
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. === I think Greg was talking about laws that were unconstitutional right from the beginning. Unfortunately our form of government makes no provision for challenging those laws other than breaking them, creating a court case, and getting a ruling which over turns them. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On 4/14/2020 2:03 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. === I think Greg was talking about laws that were unconstitutional right from the beginning. Unfortunately our form of government makes no provision for challenging those laws other than breaking them, creating a court case, and getting a ruling which over turns them. Such is the way with a Constitutional Republic. It's interesting that compared to most European countries and the rest globally, the USA is a relative newcomer as a country yet it has the oldest continuously-active Constitution on the planet. Ol' Ben Franklin, James Madison and all the others, did a pretty good job, all things considered. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:12:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/14/2020 2:03 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. === I think Greg was talking about laws that were unconstitutional right from the beginning. Unfortunately our form of government makes no provision for challenging those laws other than breaking them, creating a court case, and getting a ruling which over turns them. Such is the way with a Constitutional Republic. It's interesting that compared to most European countries and the rest globally, the USA is a relative newcomer as a country yet it has the oldest continuously-active Constitution on the planet. Ol' Ben Franklin, James Madison and all the others, did a pretty good job, all things considered. === Yes they did, and that is why I cast a very skeptical eye on attempts to seriously modify the constitution. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
|
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. |
|
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:03:51 -0400,
wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. === I think Greg was talking about laws that were unconstitutional right from the beginning. Unfortunately our form of government makes no provision for challenging those laws other than breaking them, creating a court case, and getting a ruling which over turns them. In the case of SCHENCK v. U.S, the Holmes court actually upheld the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 and that ruling held for over a half a century until it was finally tossed in the 70s. Draft protests were akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" according to Oliver Wendall Holmes, in that 1919 decision. I suppose since the 70s, that metaphor is obsolete. |
|
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:03:51 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. === I think Greg was talking about laws that were unconstitutional right from the beginning. Unfortunately our form of government makes no provision for challenging those laws other than breaking them, creating a court case, and getting a ruling which over turns them. In the case of SCHENCK v. U.S, the Holmes court actually upheld the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 and that ruling held for over a half a century until it was finally tossed in the 70s. Draft protests were akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" according to Oliver Wendall Holmes, in that 1919 decision. I suppose since the 70s, that metaphor is obsolete. Like the Edmunds Act. Passed because some Congressional folks did not like Mormons. Where in the constitution does it say he Federal government has a say in our cohabitating lives? |
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:12:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/14/2020 2:03 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. === I think Greg was talking about laws that were unconstitutional right from the beginning. Unfortunately our form of government makes no provision for challenging those laws other than breaking them, creating a court case, and getting a ruling which over turns them. Such is the way with a Constitutional Republic. It's interesting that compared to most European countries and the rest globally, the USA is a relative newcomer as a country yet it has the oldest continuously-active Constitution on the planet. Ol' Ben Franklin, James Madison and all the others, did a pretty good job, all things considered. That is why people like me and the late justice Scalia think we should preserve it and actually read the words. |
|
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Libertarians demand...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:55:08 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:39:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:25 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:14:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/14/2020 1:11 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:35:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 9:39 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:37:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/13/2020 7:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:08:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/13/20 12:53 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: ...Libertarians demand medical researchers delay coronavirus vaccine until they can assure dimwitted Americans it causes autism. Harry, you have gone over the cliff. Some prominent libertarians are vociferous anti-vaxxers and of those, some claim stupidly that the vaccines cause autism. There are also some vociferous liberal democrats who are very anti-vax. That doesn't mean everyone is. The Libertarians I have heard were not against vaccinations, only government mandated vaccination. The position is not much different than the stance on abortion. It is none of the government's business. Actually Greg, it is. Most are governed by state immunization laws but the Surgeon General can require them under certain circumstances: Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law. There are exceptions to both state and federal requirements. Depends on the circumstances. To start with I am not anti vax. I would still point out, simply passing a law does not make it right. Jim Crow was the law of the land for almost a century. Plenty of things considered normal sex acts could get you jail time up until very recently and I don't even mean gay sex. Between the Wilson administration and the Nixon administration, protesting the draft was considered a "clear and present danger to the US" as affirmed by the SCOTUS in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). I bet Harry thinks that was wrong. Plenty of laws are wrong. I was simply pointing out that by law both state and federal governments *have* the authority to mandate inoculations. The fact that you don't agree with the law is another matter. I understand the incentive and I am basically not opposed but I would be willing to ask where it stops. What other medical procedure and drugs can they compel you to take without due process? It would certainly be easy to make the societal argument for sterilization, anti alcohol drugs, maybe have the government giving people drugs they think would help calm down the dissent. It's why we have a representative form of government. It's frustrating sometimes, slow moving and time consuming but any law that is passed and signed into law must first be voted upon by the elected politicians who are supposed to be representing the people. Only exceptions are policies or rules put into affect by executive order and even then the other "equal" arm of the state or federal government becomes involved in the courts. As I said, Jim Crow, bans on anti draft speech and bans on sex acts between married couples was voted on and passed by our representatives state and federal too so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately our form of government does not allow properly executed laws to be optional depending on how you happen to feel about them. Does that mean you support unconstitutional laws, simply because a knee jerk congress passed them? If nobody complains, they keep being the law. Based on what did you reach that conclusion? Nothing like that was said or implied Jeees! -- Freedom Isn't Free! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Social Security and Libertarians | General | |||
| Supply and Demand | General | |||
| by popular demand | General | |||
| Still a big demand for big $$$ boating..... | General | |||
| Shoal keels in demand | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
