BoatBanter.com - Libertarians demand...

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:25:52 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2020 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 02:09:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/14/2020 9:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:37:18 -0400, John wrote:

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 â€œauthorized 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.â€

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!

Richard said "government does not allow properly executed laws to be
optional" It makes it sound like he supports the power of the
government to enforce unconstitutional laws.

The only recourse is to break the law and litigate it, as Mr Cohen did
in Cohen v California to get Schenck overturned or as Rosa Parks did
to get a Jim Crow law tossed.
I imagine some day the laws requiring vaccination will be litigated
and I really think these quarantine violations will get tossed if
someone has standing and the money behind them to fight it goes to
court. Some were really silly. My bet is most will simply be
dismissed.

BTW Trump is full of **** when he says he has power over when the
states start back up. There is no constitutional authority to regulate
anything that happens entirely within one state. He could get congress
to restrict interstate travel and he might even be able to restrict
travel by EO but if a governor wants to open the boat ramps and state
parks, he can. The governor could also lift bans on which businesses
are open.

That's not exactly what I said.

I did paste it there from your note.

A law can be determined to be
unconstitutional by due process ... i.e. challenged and overturned
by the judicial system (state, federal or SCOTUS). It can also
be modified or eliminated via the legislative process.

But as Wayne pointed out, that usually has to happen by breaking the
law unless the legislature does it and legislatures don't usually
revoke these kinds of laws on their own.

But, until either of those are done, the law is still on the books.

As I pointed out, simply being on the books doesn't necessarily make
it right. Someone needs to put their ass on the line to challenge it.
The Marijuana control act of 1937 was clearly unconstitutional for 32
years until Timothy Leary got himself arrested for it and took it to
the SCOTUS.
Unfortunately it was replaced by an even more unconstitutional law
(The controlled substance act) that is being ignored to avoid a court
case that would overturn it. The first federal prosecutor who takes on
a state with a legal pot law, medical or recreational, is likely to
end up in court with 47 state (plus DC) attorneys general who have
standing and the money to fight them. This has been the situation
since 1996 when California started selling medicinal pot.

I understand the argument you are making but it all comes down to
what one person or group thinks is unconstitutional and what another
person or group thinks otherwise. To simply break the law if you
don't agree with it is your choice but it doesn't mean a law was
legally determined to be unconstitutional. As you say, it's a
means of challenging a law but it doesn't change it.

Here's my problem with your philosophy on this. You and I
(or others) may have very different ideas of what is constitutional
or not depending on our interests and how it affects us. To
simply disregard it and choose what you want to accept and
what you want to ignore makes the whole concept of having a
nation based on laws moot. People can pick and choose what
laws they want to adhere to and those they have personally
decided don't apply to them.

Changing or eliminating existing laws needs to be done through
the appropriate legal process, not by cherry picking what
one wants to adhere to and what one doesn't.

The problem is the appropriate legal process. Unless someone has broken
the law, the court will not take up the case 99.99% of the time.

If you win your case in appellate court and the SCOTUS lets the
decision stand it is almost as good as a SCOTUS decision tho. It can
be used as precedent but it still does not have the gravitas of a
SCOTUS decision. OTOH even SCOTUS decisions can be challenged, usually
after a major change in the court. That is why a lot of people fear
massive changes in the makeup of the court. The Holmes court certainly
had different views from the Warren and Burger courts.
I know a lot of people want to see the Roberts court revisit a lot of
those older decisions but be careful what you wish for. If they take
another swing at Roe, they might also endanger a "privacy" right you
do care about. "Privacy" was the legal issue in Roe, not abortion.