1 edit
@eladar saidSo we're agreed that democratically elected governments have a legitimate power to enact and enforce measures which limit an individual's freedom to potentially harm others.
No, I am against your generalization of speed limits. If we have speed limits then obviously the government has the right to do anything.
That really ends the discussion as regards mandatory social distancing measures in the middle of an epidemic your attempt at creating a Strawman notwithstanding.
@no1marauder saidI can agree to the fact the Constitution is the law of the land and that the US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution against threats both foreign and domestic.
So we're agreed that democratically elected governments have a legitimate power to enact and enforce measures which limit an individual's freedom to potentially harm others.
That really ends the discussion as regards mandatory social distancing measures in the middle of an epidemic.
The US military has no responsibility to protect politicians, quite the contrary.
@flopwrist saidJust wave the [sarcasm] flag, but some sarcasm is so cynical that it is not to be accepted.
You're smart? 🤔
1 edit
@eladar saidThat's relevant ............. how?
I can agree to the fact the Constitution is the law of the land and that the US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution against threats both foreign and domestic.
The US military has no responsibility to protect politicians, quite the contrary.
You might want to check out the last sentence of Article IV, Section 4.
@no1marauder saidnot if it is unconstitutional.
So we're agreed that democratically elected governments have a legitimate power to enact and enforce measures which limit an individual's freedom to potentially harm others.
That really ends the discussion as regards mandatory social distancing measures in the middle of an epidemic your attempt at creating a Strawman notwithstanding.
We went thru this. What about 'popular' slavery, 1800's?
@no1marauder saidNot sure what you see in Article 4 section 4. Perhaps you see the demand for a Communist Dictstorship.
That's relevant ............. how?
You might want to check out the last sentence of Article IV, Section 4.
@earl-of-trumps saidExcept its not.
not if it is unconstitutional.
We went thru this. What about 'popular' slavery, 1800's?
Yes, we did.
@eladar saidDid you read the last sentence?
Not sure what you see in Article 4 section 4. Perhaps you see the demand for a Communist Dictstorship.
@mchill saidThe above is an example of libs screwing up a nice post. Pro Life has to do with protecting uborn babies (being pro, in favor or their having life, like we do.....I would think that you would know that distinction)
So - dying is now "pro life"??
Well, that's one I've not heard.
The reason you have not heard it is that any one with any sense would not apply that reference to this post. Whew. Idiot, as Mattthe Hoopie would say.
@no1marauder saidAbout how we need to be a Communist dictatorial state?
Did you read the last sentence?
Oh, you're playing stupid (o not playing). Here's Article IV, Section 4:
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.