# "Stay at Home" Orders are Unconstitutional



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Just heard on local Fox channel.. couldn't catch details..
Man in Georgia just filed a lawsuit against his local authorities; cant legally 'quarantine' a healthy person.
Looking for a link - please post if you can find one. Thanks!


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

You really don't expect 'officials' to follow the Constitution, do you?


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

I’ve posted in another topic here that Galveston county.. in their order.. listed all the thing you cannot do and that all the companies and stored needed to close yet at the bottom it says a resident can “exercise their constitution rights”. This basically negated anything they could “proclaim”. Another city in the county said they’d find people $2k for violations. This would be yet another unconstitutional act and I’ll bet the suits will be staggering. 

With that said, yeah, do the right thing and if your sick stay put, keep some social distance and help out, but the government is taking your rights and freedoms (over your concern for safety).


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Back Pack Hack said:


> You really don't expect 'officials' to follow the Constitution, do you?


No, but I can count on you to fart in every punch bowl. :vs_smirk:


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

just do the right thing!!!!


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Piratesailor said:


> I've posted in another topic here that Galveston county.. in their order.. listed all the thing you cannot do and that all the companies and stored needed to close yet at the bottom it says a resident can "exercise their constitution rights". This basically negated anything they could "proclaim". Another city in the county said they'd find people $2k for violations. This would be yet another unconstitutional act and I'll bet the suits will be staggering.
> 
> With that said, yeah, do the right thing and if your sick stay put, keep some social distance and help out, but the government is taking your rights and freedoms (over your concern for safety).


Yep. I wonder if there is a 'breaking point' for the general public to rise up. Not hopeful on that; indoctrination runs deep.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Even here in Commiefornia we haven't been "ordered" to do anything. It is a recommendation. 

But anytime the sheep here hear anything from the gubment they take it as gospel. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Its pretty clear to me that if Congress were to make a Law forcing We The People to stay at home, it would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding the right to Peacefully Assemble.

Article _ (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> No, but I can count on you to fart in every punch bowl. :vs_smirk:


Oh, sweetie... I do more than just _fart_ in 'em! :vs_whistle:


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Oh, sweetie... I do more than just _fart_ in 'em! :vs_whistle:


So.. just like the covid modelling then. 
Instead of just having to smell it here and there - we have to eat what the gov wants to shove down our throats.
Special.


----------



## paulag1955 (Dec 15, 2019)

Slippy said:


> Its pretty clear to me that if Congress were to make a Law forcing We The People to stay at home, it would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding the right to Peacefully Assemble.
> 
> Article _ (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


_

Not to mention that barring churches from meeting also violates the right of the people to freely exercise their religion._


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> So.. just like the covid modelling then.
> Instead of just having to smell it here and there - we have to eat what the gov wants to shove down our throats.
> Special.


Uh.... where did I say that?

I simply asked why you're surprised the gubbamint doesn't bother following the Constitution.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Unwarranted post deleted.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Can’t we all just get along?


----------



## paulag1955 (Dec 15, 2019)

KUSA said:


> Can't we all just get along?


"The only way to win is to deny the battle."


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

paulag1955 said:


> "The only way to win is to deny the battle."


Not on my mountain.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

paulag1955 said:


> Not to mention that barring churches from meeting also violates the right of the people to freely exercise their religion.


 ...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Ok. So lets all demand our constitutional rights and assemble in groups, go to church, and travel where ever and when ever we please. Then a lot more of us will get sick and some of us will die much sooner than we otherwise would. Some of us will infect others and cause their premature deaths. So yep! These instructions are unconstitutional, but they sure sound like common sense to me. 

And before you give me the “give me liberty or give me death” argument, consider this. Would you be willing to accept quarantine and travel restrictions if the virus had a 100% mortality rate? How about a 50% rate? What would be your cutoff? I’m not advocating one way or the other. Just throwing this out there as food for thought.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Its pretty clear to me that if Congress were to make a Law forcing We The People to stay at home, it would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding the right to Peacefully Assemble.
> 
> Article _ (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


_

Also, Amendment V, the part that states: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"

Or this big one - Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."_


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Here ya go, from an unbiased site:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Here ya go, from an unbiased site:
> https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation


Good info there, thanks.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Chiefster23 said:


> Ok. So lets all demand our constitutional rights and assemble in groups, go to church, and travel where ever and when ever we please. Then a lot more of us will get sick and some of us will die much sooner than we otherwise would. Some of us will infect others and cause their premature deaths. So yep! These instructions are unconstitutional, but they sure sound like common sense to me.
> 
> And before you give me the "give me liberty or give me death" argument, consider this. Would you be willing to accept quarantine and travel restrictions if the virus had a 100% mortality rate? How about a 50% rate? What would be your cutoff? I'm not advocating one way or the other. Just throwing this out there as food for thought.


So, if other people run around, but you stay yourself home in solitude, and they all die, and you don't get sick...how are you discommoded?


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

It’s not possible for a person or family to remain quarantined indefinitely. Sooner or later you have to come out to resupply, visit a doctor, buy a prescription, etc.
So we have constitutional rights vs the right of an individual to not be infected or die from unnecessary exposure. It’s a tough call. It’s basically the old saying “are you willing to give up some freedoms or rights in return for some security?”


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Chiefster23 said:


> It's not possible for a person or family to remain quarantined indefinitely. Sooner or later you have to come out to resupply, visit a doctor, buy a prescription, etc.
> So we have constitutional rights vs the right of an individual to not be infected or die from unnecessary exposure. It's a tough call. It's basically the old saying "are you willing to give up some freedoms or rights in return for some security?"


I am not willing to give up freedoms for security. I may have to make some decisions I don't want to, as a result of that lack of security, but my freedoms will be intact.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## paulag1955 (Dec 15, 2019)

stevekozak said:


> I am not willing to give up freedoms for security. I may have to make some decisions I don't want to, as a result of that lack of security, but my freedoms will be intact.


I'm not willing to give up my liberty for the false promise of safety.


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

Safety is what you make it no matter the situation. I am not looking at any of this BS stay home stay safe bs as loss of freedom. I am however taking 100% precautions to keep from spreading anything to a family member who might not recover from a illness that I don't even know I am carrying.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

RubberDuck said:


> Safety is what you make it no matter the situation. I am not looking at any of this BS stay home stay safe bs as loss of freedom. I am however taking 100% precautions to keep from spreading anything to a family member who might not recover from a illness that I don't even know I am carrying.


Decisions have consequences. Fact of life. I don't like others making decisions for me.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Chiefster23 said:


> Ok. So lets all demand our constitutional rights and assemble in groups, go to church, and travel where ever and when ever we please. Then a lot more of us will get sick and some of us will die much sooner than we otherwise would. Some of us will infect others and cause their premature deaths. So yep! These instructions are unconstitutional, but they sure sound like common sense to me.
> 
> And before you give me the "give me liberty or give me death" argument, consider this. Would you be willing to accept quarantine and travel restrictions if the virus had a 100% mortality rate? How about a 50% rate? What would be your cutoff? I'm not advocating one way or the other. Just throwing this out there as food for thought.


The order comes down "You must turn in your guns, for the good of all".
Whatcha gonna do? Constitutionally protected rights a little more in focus now?


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

stevekozak said:


> Decisions have consequences. Fact of life. I don't like others making decisions for me.


No problem I have no love for the government either but get someone's loved ones sick over stubbornness or watch one of your loved ones suffer and die because of stubbornness you might change up your tune it's not for the responsible ones it's in place for the the one shitty kid in class that ruined it for everyone. Case in point the little stupid drunk spring break kids.


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The order comes down "You must turn in your guns, for the good of all".
> Whatcha gonna do? Constitutionally protected rights a little more in focus now?


This is not situation at hand that is a whole other topic.

What if aliens come down and put a probe in your ass ? Different topic all together


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Whether we're talkin guns or covid - nature has a way of weaning out the stupid.


----------



## 1895gunner (Sep 23, 2012)

I'm not following direction, I'm protecting my wife and my own health. The government can tell me what they want, we'll decipher if we accept their position or not. In this case staying home makes sense for the good of us & the general population. If they told us to get out and mingle in public with crowds - I'd still make a decision on what's best for us. 

Nothing has changed here at our castle other than there is a bad bug out there and we aren't mixing it up with anybody. Nobody has infringed upon our rights and even if they did, we'd still go our own way...……….


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

RubberDuck said:


> ...
> 
> What if aliens come down and put a probe in your ass ? Different topic all together


Excellent question for the community. Please note that our good man @KUSA has, in another thread, broached the subject of extemporanus insemination.

"Discuss..." :vs_blush:


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The order comes down "You must turn in your guns, for the good of all".
> Whatcha gonna do? Constitutionally protected rights a little more in focus now?


That's a good analogy.
We have the God given right to bear arms - but that doesn't mean we're gonna shoot up congress no matter how tempting.
We have the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble - but that doesn't mean we're gonna go to a covid BBQ.
The more *restrictions* that are put on people - the less *personal responsibility* they have to take. 
Doesn't take the gov to tell us what the right thing to do is.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

RubberDuck said:


> This is not situation at hand that is a whole other topic.
> 
> What if aliens come down and put a probe in your ass ? Different topic all together


No it's not.
We are talking about rights.
How many do YOU want to give up?

I personally will not voluntarily give up ANY.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Actually, I "self isolate" every day as a routine matter of course. 
I have for at least 30 years.

I really, really dislike being around people.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

On Jan 2, 1968, I swore an oath that said, among other things, that I would "protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC"
I have never been relieved of that.

So, when some turd political tyrant DEMANDS I stay in my house, I get a little bent out of shape.
And just might REFUSE to do so.
On general principle.


----------



## Demitri.14 (Nov 21, 2018)

Chiefster23 said:


> Ok. So lets all demand our constitutional rights and assemble in groups, go to church, and travel where ever and when ever we please. Then a lot more of us will get sick and some of us will die much sooner than we otherwise would. Some of us will infect others and cause their premature deaths. So yep! These instructions are unconstitutional, but they sure sound like common sense to me.
> 
> And before you give me the "give me liberty or give me death" argument, consider this. Would you be willing to accept quarantine and travel restrictions if the virus had a 100% mortality rate? How about a 50% rate? What would be your cutoff? I'm not advocating one way or the other. Just throwing this out there as food for thought.


I still would not support the Govt from imposing restrictions. I Like how they are RECOMMENDING restrictions, and I think most people are following them.

The second amendment is for enforcing them.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Wait till the government puts signs on your doors saying you have COVID19.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Steve40th said:


> Wait till the government puts signs on your doors saying you have COVID19.


If you shoot someone within 6 feet of your property, would that just be considered good social distancing? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

The Rhode Island governor has directed the National Guard to do door-to-door searches for people who have guns....errr I mean...people who have been to New York and do who knows what with them.

Rhode Island Police to Hunt Down New Yorkers Seeking Refuge

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-27/rhode-island-police-to-hunt-down-new-yorkers-seeking-refuge


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Here we are again caught up in a mind set that there is such a thing as constitutional and Unconstitutional . There is not . there is only what we put up with and what some judge or panel of judges orders. In the end it is not congress nor the president , your state it is 5 or 9. That will tell you how it works. They will rule not based on law or anything else other than how the feel about it at that time. Long as we put up with it we are right back were we came from a King ruling us. In this case the king is 5 of 9.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-far-do-cou

Where did they come up with this 6 feet idea? A meter is a little over 3 feet.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

1skrewsloose said:


> https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-far-do-cou
> 
> Where did they come up with this 6 feet idea? A meter is a little over 3 feet.


You don't reckon the government and media could just be making some stuff up, do you? They wouldn't do that, would they?


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, just a safety concern.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

stevekozak said:


> You don't reckon the government and media could just be making some stuff up, do you? They wouldn't do that, would they?


Careful! Some here take offense to comments like this.

Jez sayin.... :tango_face_wink:


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

1skrewsloose said:


> I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, just a safety concern.


It was a legitimate post. No hijacking involved.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

We have a “stay home stay safe”.....suggestion? The only thing being forced on us is restaurants not having dine in options. Everything else is up and rocking in the free world, with a couple of small businesses shut down voluntarily.

We are self isolating as much as is reasonable, and my work no longer requires much human interaction, but imho this is being used as a tool by the globalist to poop in our soup...


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

jim-henscheli said:


> We have a "stay home stay safe".....suggestion? The only thing being forced on us is restaurants not having dine in options. Everything else is up and rocking in the free world, with a couple of small businesses shut down voluntarily.
> 
> We are self isolating as much as is reasonable, and my work no longer requires much human interaction, but imho this is being used as a tool by the globalist to poop in our soup...


Are you in a red or blue state, Jim?


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Well our governor is a bootlicking retard, but technically a red state. NC


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Steve40th said:


> Wait till the government puts signs on your doors saying you have COVID19.


Great Idea!!!
I need some of these to hang on my fence that fronts on the county road!!

Then people will REALLY leave me alone!!!

I'm as serious as a heart attack about socializing with humans as little as possible. Now, dogs and horses are another matter entirely.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I still think one of the best signs you can put on your rural property gate is;

These Gates are Locked for YOUR Protection, not mine!


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Slippy said:


> I still think one of the best signs you can put on your rural property gate is;
> 
> These Gates are Locked for YOUR Protection, not mine!


I thought about posting a sign that I saw once. It was black cross hairs centered the white sign with the words "If You Can Read This, You Are In Range."

But, I was advised by a lawyer friend that if, indeed, I had to shoot someone, that sign may be used against me.


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I thought about posting a sign that I saw once. It was black cross hairs centered the white sign with the words "If You Can Read This, You Are In Range."
> 
> But, I was advised by a lawyer friend that if, indeed, I had to shoot someone, that sign may be used against me.


Yes this has been used in court before with Beware of Dog signs so I believe they could use all the funny signs against us.
I had a Forget the dog Beware of owner sign with a picture of a pointed revolver on it sadly also took it down on recommendation.


----------

