Under Color of Law v. Executive Stay At Home Orders (Continued)

Constitutional Rights Under Color of Law v. Executive Stay At Home Orders (Continued) 5.8.20 Thank you to Dr. Tom Carter, retired Northshore School District Civics, Economics, and History teacher, for bringing this information to our attention. “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.” U.S. Supreme Court Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ In this case, the US Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts mandatory vaccination statute. If such a statute can be upheld for the health and benefit of the community, does it not stand to reason that Gov. Inslee’s executive order, made for a similar purpose, are Constitutional?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sec. of State Handles Calls for Help from Other States

On Behalf of WEA’s More Conservative Members #60 Examples of Sec. of State Wyman’s Media Appearances #3 - NBC - Coronavirus 'worst-case scenario': Could the presidential vote be done by mail? 3/26/2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/coronavirus-worst-case-scenario-could-presidential-vote-be-done-mail-n1168151 8.24.20 This series is in response to WA State Democratic Party Chairperson’s claiming Sec. of State Kim Wyman has not been “championing vote by mail across the country” . •Wyman said she's been inundated with calls from colleagues in other states seeking advice. •"The first thing I say is people need to understand the context," she said. "I am probably the biggest champion of vote by mail in the country, but it took us five years to move from polling places to vote-by-mail." •Every state that isn't used to voting primarily by mail will have to prepare for a huge increase in volume. •Voters need to be told not only how to v
Read more

ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION?

SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU KIDDIN’ ME!! #10 ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION? Aren’t These People Supposed to Know Better? 8.26.20 -The US Postal Service was created by an enabling act in the US Constitution. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). -Under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, election protocols are the responsibility of the States, subject to the US Constitution. (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) It is, therefore, my opinion that the recent actions taken by Pres. Trump’s recently appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy constitute a double assault on the US Constitution. Furthermore, the timing and targeting of mail sorting and delivery capabilities are clearly intended to disrupt the upcoming General Election and set the scene for a refusal by Pres. Trump to honor the results of the election, should he be defeated.
Read more

The Righteous US v. The Evil Them

Could This Be the Beginning of a Trend? #15 The Righteous US v. The Evil Them 7.8.20 There’s a great line, spoken by Ben Franklin, in the stage play/movie “1776”. I’m paraphrasing here, but it goes something like this…. “Revolution in the first person, our revolution, is always good. It’s only bad in the third person, their revolution.” As I look at the text of President Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech, I see this concept in the form of an effort to emphasize an “US v. Them” scenario. On the Fourth of July, I would imagine a speech would emphasize the “WE”, but that does not seem to be the case. For example: "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children." To start with, I’m struck by the scenario of “our nation”, not theirs; the “our history”, not theirs; “our heroes”, not theirs; “our values”, not theirs; and “our children”, not theirs. It implies “they” are not p
Read more