Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
jk

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Pray tell, how would it be "unconstitutional"?

I'm no lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'd go with the old standby:

Amendment 1: freedom of speech (widely interpreted today to include freedom of expression). 

 

Put a far less subtle, less PC, way: Don't make me wear a gold star. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'm no lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'd go with the old standby:

Amendment 1: freedom of speech (widely interpreted today to include freedom of expression). 

Weak. 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-coronavirus-mask-mandates-constitutional-20200723-53dpqip7lff55o5fp444mql6cm-story.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

I see.  So, you are a constitutional lawyer now.  Internet style. 

LMFAO.

Pray tell, how would it be "unconstitutional"?

Will you and the other internet constitutional lawyers get together and throw out seat belt laws, drinking and driving laws, health department codes for restaurants, etc? 

This should be interesting. 

Try and keep up Skippy. 

From Dementia Joe

Quote

 

On Thursday, Mr. Biden took a different view. “I cannot mandate people wearing masks,” he said. But he added that he did have the authority to enforce mask-wearing on federal property and could institute a fine if people did not do so.

“I can do that on federal property,” he said, about a mask mandate. “As president, I will do that. On federal land, I would have the authority. If you’re on federal land, you must wear a mask. In a federal building, you must wear a mask. And we could have a fine for them not doing it.”

 

There is some question whether it would be an over reach or not.

Quote

 

Joe Biden, however, would demand a vast federal power over health, and he would locate it in the executive branch. But that would be a mistake. It is true that the Constitution gives significant power to the president over foreign affairs. There, as Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 70, “[e]nergy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.”

But on the domestic front, the Constitution sends Congress to the fore. Justice Robert Jackson once argued in his famous concurrence in the so-called steel seizure cases that presidential power in domestic affairs would reach its zenith when the president acted according to Congress’s authorization, and it would hit its nadir when the president acts contrary to Congress. There is a middle zone where the president is neither acting in accord or against congressional authorization, and so must rely solely on whatever executive power the office has.

There is nothing, however, that authorizes a President Trump now, or a President Biden tomorrow, to mandate face coverings nationwide via executive power. Congress has not enacted any such law for the president to enforce. Masks do not fall under the president’s power as commander-in-chief, nor do they plausibly come within any of his other executive authorities, such as granting pardons or nominating officers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

Then don't "fix" my posts if you can't back it up.

can't help...almost all of your posts are easily fixed....u never have any rebuttals?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

montreal-canadiens.jpeg

Flower Power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

As the article title says, that is wonderful Commentary; but, until the issue is argued and adjudicated in the courts it is just that ... commentary (aka opinion).  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

As the article title says, that is wonderful Commentary; but, until the issue is argued and adjudicated in the courts it is just that ... commentary (aka opinion).  

Nope.  Goon said it was unconstitutional.  So, there you have it.  Lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Goon said:

Fair enough.  He shifted positions a bit.  I just went off memory of an earlier speech. 

However, it is in question whether it would be constitutional.  

In the meantime, I am going drinking and driving, not wearing seat belts.  The heck with speed limits too.

Because.. freedom!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

can't help...almost all of your posts are easily fixed....u never have any rebuttals?  

Me: simpsons' depiction of nuclear power ruined public perception of it

You: it was the Media!

Me: do you have any examples of this?

You: *lists liberal media outlets rather than examples*

Me: again, actual examples?

You: look it up yourself

 

Not sure how I'm supposed to have a rebuttal to that. I'm more than willing to back up my assertion about the Simpsons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

maybe Biden just let it slip that this plandemic was 100% planned and 100% preventable?

Found the QAnon believer (along with whoever liked the post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

Me: simpsons' depiction of nuclear power ruined public perception of it

You: it was the Media!

Me: do you have any examples of this?

You: *lists liberal media outlets rather than examples*

Me: again, actual examples?

You: look it up yourself

 

Not sure how I'm supposed to have a rebuttal to that. I'm more than willing to back up my assertion about the Simpsons.

not sure if you heard but watching the simpsons is racist now per hank azaria (but he won't give back the millions he made being a racist tho)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

not sure if you heard but watching the simpsons is racist now per hank azaria (but he won't give back the millions he made being a racist tho)

Is that what you consider a rebuttal? Going off on an irrelevant tangent? Give this guy the siouxsports debate championship trophy!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the game of pin the tail on a moving donkey the CDC reverses course (for the 19th time) to recommended anyone in close contact with someone of documented Covid positive status needs to get tested even if the close contact individual is asymptomatic. 

#pickaf***inglane

#noendgameinsight

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'm no lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'd go with the old standby:

Amendment 1: freedom of speech (widely interpreted today to include freedom of expression). 

 

Put a far less subtle, less PC, way: Don't make me wear a gold star. 

 

Let's not get 2 things mixed up.  Mask mandates are not innately unconstitutional.   The 1st Amendment is first and foremost subject to the health and safety of the people.  The Supreme Court just validated this in March.  

That said, does the federal government (unlike the state) have the authority to mandate the wearing of masks?  This is where we are in unchartered waters.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

The 1st Amendment is subject to the health and safety of the people. 

Gee, and some would like to change "1st" in your statement to "2nd" I'm sure. 

 

And please explain how one can "mandate" if one does not have "authority". -- I mandate you eat a PB&J for supper tonight! (You laugh because I'm not the boss of your meals.) 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

In the game of pin the tail on a moving donkey the CDC reverses course (for the 19th time) to recommended anyone in close contact with someone of documented Covid positive status needs to get tested even if the close contact individual is asymptomatic. 

#pickaf***inglane

#noendgameinsight

You don’t think Caputo’s leave had anything to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Gee, and some would like to change "1st" in your statement to "2nd" I'm sure. 

 

And please explain how one can "mandate" if one does not have "authority". -- I mandate you eat a PB&J for supper tonight! (You laugh because I'm not the boss of your meals.) 

 

 

Quit being difficult.  This isn't your cousin telling you to eat PB&J.   Government authority is predicated on laws which grant authority.  The feds can authorize mask wearing if they have a legal justification for doing a such.  But, like I said, we're in new territory here.  There's currently nothing on the books saying the feds can or cant mandate face masks.  As such they'd need to make the legal argument for doing so because it would certainly be challenged by the opposing party.  As it stands now,  the PHSA would likely be the best argument for it.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

Found the QAnon believer (along with whoever liked the post)

 

Speaking of QAnon craziness.    This Fox interview came to an awkward screeching halt when Newt brought up George Soros.     

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

Quit being difficult.  This isn't your cousin telling you to eat PB&J.   Government authority is predicated on laws which grant authority.  The feds can authorize mask wearing if they have a legal justification for doing a such.  But, like I said, we're in new territory here.  There's currently nothing on the books saying the feds can or cant mandate face masks.  As such they'd need to make the legal argument for doing so because it would certainly be challenged by the opposing party.  As it stands now,  the PHSA would likely be the best argument for it.  

You just spelled it out.
Authority --> Justification --> Mandate --> And they'd have to make their argument because there's nothing on the books. 

At this point, it must be noted that if they have to make a legal argument for it, they don't presently have authority to mandate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

Speaking of QAnon craziness.    This Fox interview came to an awkward screeching halt when Newt brought up George Soros.     

 

 

So Newt is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

Speaking of QAnon craziness.    This Fox interview came to an awkward screeching halt when Newt brought up George Soros.     

 

 

What would this segment have to do with Qanon? Harf and Melissa Francis freaked out when Newt made a statement that is 100% accurate and verifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hayduke1 said:

Fair enough.  He shifted positions a bit.  I just went off memory of an earlier speech. 

However, it is in question whether it would be constitutional.  

In the meantime, I am going drinking and driving, not wearing seat belts.  The heck with speed limits too.

Because.. freedom!

If you want to make poor decisions that’s on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...