The district courts and appelate courts already did in deciding that freedom og assembly can be curtailed in support of national health emergency., plus also decided that freedom of religion does not grant absolute right over government laws in the interest of national health or reasonableness standard. First Amendment protections, while broad, are not absolute. Regan v. Boogertman, 984 F.2d 577, 579 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 360, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976)). It is axiomatic, for instance, that government officials may stop or disperse public demonstrations or protests where "clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940). Indeed, where a public gathering threatened to escalate into racial violence and members of a hostile crowd began voicing physical threats, the Supreme Court expressly sanctioned police action that ended the demonstration and arrested the speaker, who defied police orders to cease and desist. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 317-21, 71 S. Ct. 303, 95 L. Ed. 295 (1951). The police, the Court reasoned, were not "powerless to prevent a breach of the peace" in light of the "imminence of greater disorder" that the situation created. Id. at 321, 71 S. Ct. 303. -- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006)
you keep arguing as if your side was that the Court would uphold govt restrictions. but your side was that there is no argument.. .you even said no one would sue. I told you that while I agree the court would probably support the govt.. .the right to shut down a churches was not absolute. the court would have to weigh the facts. I am not done with this argument. pretend whatever you want... .
I saw Tucker Carlson interview Phil Murphy last night and now the chicken heads are parroting his ridiculous argument that religious gatherings are a protected religious practice. No, they are not in a state of emergency. All rights have limits. You all can just stop this nonsense. Tucker Carlson is a moron for even asking such and obviously baseless question.
and all shutdowns of constitutional rights have limits. if we allowed govt to do what that wanted without examination because they claim emergency... we would effectively have no constitutional rights vs the government. -- I think there is a very good chance the court would review the collision of Govt duty to protect people vs our Constitutional rights (impacted by this shutdown) with a strict scrutiny framework... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny As we get more data and information and we move towards the end of the crisis the court would naturally move closer to curtailing the shutdown of liberty.
What is amazing is that you are just noticing that now. The Trump administration "crumbled up and threw the Constitution in the trash" on day one!
Jem was so happy when Trump brought Bannon into government , they were going to tear down big government and give power to the people. Then he was so happy when Trump installed Kavanah onto the Supreme Court , Now he thinks 'six pack' Kavanah was going to protect his liberty.
I am far from a Trump drone. You all fail to understand the nuance of someone who loves the constitution and liberty and despises the fact the establishment gives us the worst of the left and the right in furtherance of the desires of the global elite. For instance per the Constitution I think the states absolutely have the right and the duty to regulate our health and safety within constitutional limits. So while I think Gavin Newsome over played this shutdown for San Diego, within Constitutional limits, it was his call not Trump's in most cases. (immigration and travel may be Trump's call) So when Trump calls for the opening... in general I would still think it Newsome's call (on most subjects). Trump has also made other scary statements about his power. So as I was against Obama's over reach... I am against Trump's over reach too. As I am always against Federal Govt over reach. I don't smoke pot but I support CA's right to do what it desires on that subject. (and many others) In many other ways, I don't support Trump. You all TDS types simply see anyone who does not hate Trump as someone who loves him.
citing a wiki on udicial scrutiny is not legal research or dispositive on the issue Courts already decided this issue in the past. President..CDC...Surgeon General...Corona Virus Task Force all declared national health emergency as well as most governors. this was not a whimsical, arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable decision unsupported at all levels of government. Case dismissed...no SC scrutiny needed here when they have already decided this is within government authority. Also you can still pray and read your bible at home so you are not being denied the right to practice your religion..only gather in groups inside a building like everywhere else. Easter is gone so no more standing and issue is moot. I cannot find any simpler language to describe it.
I was cite myself for what Judicial Reivew and Scrutiny is... I present the wiki article for those who needed to understand what it is without taking Constitutional law or Civ pro.