• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It Is Not Your Constitutional Right To Not Wear A Mask

That was different. The US Constitution specifically states that the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" can be suspended in "cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The Civil War qualifies as a "rebellion" and therefore within the President's constitutional authority to suspend the privilege. There are no such provisions or exceptions for the due process of law, and it may not be suspended in the event of rebellion, invasion, or any other declared emergency.

I was referring to the poster's initial claim: " Under no circumstances, including declared emergencies, may government limit or restrict our liberty without due process of law."

And your response affirms that. But as I write this, it occurs to me that I should also have mentioned that Commerce Clause gives both the federal government and state governments the right to isolate and/or quarantine without due process under the Commerce Clause. My bad for not mentioning/thinking of that to begin with.
 
I was referring to the poster's initial claim: " Under no circumstances, including declared emergencies, may government limit or restrict our liberty without due process of law."

And your response affirms that. But as I write this, it occurs to me that I should also have mentioned that Commerce Clause gives both the federal government and state governments the right to isolate and/or quarantine without due process under the Commerce Clause. My bad for not mentioning/thinking of that to begin with.

The government certainly has the authority to isolate/quarantine/restrict the liberty of anyone, regardless of the Commerce Clause. What they may not do, however, is ignore due process of the law. If government wishes to restrict anyone's liberty, it doesn't matter the reason, they must abide by due process of law as both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment requires.

As long as government adheres to substantive and procedural due process of law, they can lock up anyone they please. But first they must present evidence before a court of law. It happens in every criminal case, and it should also be occurring now. Nobody should be deprived of their liberty without due process of law.
 
The government certainly has the authority to isolate/quarantine/restrict the liberty of anyone, regardless of the Commerce Clause. What they may not do, however, is ignore due process of the law. If government wishes to restrict anyone's liberty, it doesn't matter the reason, they must abide by due process of law as both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment requires.

As long as government adheres to substantive and procedural due process of law, they can lock up anyone they please. But first they must present evidence before a court of law. It happens in every criminal case, and it should also be occurring now. Nobody should be deprived of their liberty without due process of law.

so if half the population, about 166,000,000 people, were to be (theoretically) infected with smallpox, the rest of the population would be left to catch the disease while waiting for 166,000,000 U.S. court cases to prove doctors' diagnoses.
 
The government certainly has the authority to isolate/quarantine/restrict the liberty of anyone, regardless of the Commerce Clause. What they may not do, however, is ignore due process of the law. If government wishes to restrict anyone's liberty, it doesn't matter the reason, they must abide by due process of law as both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment requires.

As long as government adheres to substantive and procedural due process of law, they can lock up anyone they please. But first they must present evidence before a court of law. It happens in every criminal case, and it should also be occurring now. Nobody should be deprived of their liberty without due process of law.

They are adhering to due process of law. They don't have to individually decide for each person in a court. We don't have to be individually told in a court to wear a seatbelt. It's the law, it applies to everyone. If you get a fine for not wearing a mask, you can go ahead and try and challenge that in court if you want. That's your right under due process.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this exact issue. The government can force precautionary measures during a pandemic. Up to and including full quarantine. I know you personally think this other standard should exist, but it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
How many industries use these masks?
I have no idea.

They ARE dangerous to others because of the valve.
If these masks are dangerous then it's a good thing we stopped wearing them. A few guys wear home-made cloth masks but that's it, everyone else is maskless.

Do you think N95's are really needed for the industry?
A mask is rarely needed for my industry, and when a mask IS needed an N95 won't do. You need a full face seal and bodysuit because of hazardous chemicals.

If so, they should switch to the un-vented ones. Or maybe there is a way to block the valve. If paper surgical masks would work, they are also cheaper.
Letting employees sign mask-waivers turned out to be the cheapest, and most popular option.
 
...
Letting employees sign mask-waivers turned out to be the cheapest, and most popular option.

During a pandemic the mask requirement is meant to protect all employees. Not just those who choose not to wear a mask.

So I hope all employees of the company signed the waivers.

Otherwise , the waivers were useless and an employee who contracted Covid 19 from a non mask wearer who signed the waiver could be sued along with the company.
 
During a pandemic the mask requirement is meant to protect all employees. Not just those who choose not to wear a mask.
No, it's meant to make you feel like you can do something about COVID-19. Cloth masks are useless.

So I hope all employees of the company signed the waivers.
My guess is 90-95% of us have. There are about 1000 people on the property.

Otherwise, the waivers were useless and an employee who contracted COVID 19 from a non-mask wearer who signed the waiver could be sued along with the company.
The purpose of the waiver is so we don't have to wear masks. The waiver works 100% every single day, as evidenced by our not having to wear masks.

And I would be interested to know exactly how someone could prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' they got covid-19 from a specific individual.
 
No, it's meant to make you feel like you can do something about COVID-19. Cloth masks are useless.


My guess is 90-95% of us have. There are about 1000 people on the property.


The purpose of the waiver is so we don't have to wear masks. The waiver works 100% every single day, as evidenced by our not having to wear masks.

And I would be interested to know exactly how someone could prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' they got covid-19 from a specific individual.

Actually , that’s what tracing determines.

It was a chilly evening in Mount Vernon, Washington, on March 10, when a group of singers met for choir practice at their church, just as they did most Tuesday nights.
The full choir consists of 122 singers, but only 61 made it that night, including one who had been fighting cold-like symptoms for a few days.
That person later tested positive for the coronavirus,
and within two days of the practice, six more members of the choir had developed a fever. Ultimately, 53 members of the choir became ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, and two of them died.
The event, which was first reported by The Los Angeles Times in March, demonstrated how contagious and dangerous the coronavirus is, especially among older populations. The median age for those attending the practice that night was 69.

A study since then has showed that swift action by the members of the choir, including voluntary isolation, along with contact tracing by the Skagit County Health Department, helped contain the spread and prevent what could have been a much larger outbreak in that community, about an hour’s drive north of Seattle.
Although the virus spread quickly and thoroughly within the choir, it did not result in a significant increase in the infection rate of the community at large.

Coronavirus ravaged a choir. But it didn’t spread further. - Baltimore Sun



Ask the lawyers , they are preparing their cases .
 
Last edited:
No, it's meant to make you feel like you can do something about COVID-19. Cloth masks are useless.

Especially when you go to Rite Aid to pick up a prescription, everyone is wearing masks, but they hand you a pen to sign the receipt with - a pen that everyone else picking up prescriptions has grasped in their hands

I've gone to pick up take-out from a restaurant, where all the employees were wearing masks, and had the person touch my hand as they were handing me the food

I kind of feel like over-focusing on masks can distract people from taking even more important precautions - I've seen a few reports from some physicians who feel that direct contact with people and surfaces is a more common method of transmission than droplets being let into the air (can't confirm it's true, just putting it out there...)
 
Last edited:
Why would I bother talking to the lawyers? I'm not their cliant, isn't that illegal? Lawyer/cliant confidentiality or something?

Ha Ha :lol:

Do what you want.
You are going to do it anyway.
 
Actually, it is our right not to wear a mask just like it's a right not to own a gun for personal protection.

Okay then, we're clear on that. It's my right to cough near to your face if I'm infected with Ebola, Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Typhoid or Covid-19, right?
 
Okay then, we're clear on that. It's my right to cough near to your face if I'm infected with Ebola, Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Typhoid or Covid-19, right?

Yes. Unless you know you are infected and your intent was to infect others.
 
Especially when you go to Rite Aid to pick up a prescription, everyone is wearing masks, but they hand you a pen to sign the receipt with - a pen that everyone else picking up prescriptions has grasped in their hands

I've gone to pick up take-out from a restaurant, where all the employees were wearing masks, and had the person touch my hand as they were handing me the food

I kind of feel like over-focusing on masks can distract people from taking even more important precautions - I've seen a few reports from some physicians who feel that direct contact with people and surfaces is a more common method of transmission than droplets being let into the air (can't confirm it's true, just putting it out there...)

It's just the opposite according to a new report by the CDC put out 3 days ago.

Coronavirus isn’t easily spread by touching surfaces, CDC now says
Spread of COVID-19 can still happen but risk is low


Coronavirus isn’t easily spread by touching surfaces, CDC now says

ORLANDO, Fla. – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has revised its assessment of how the coronavirus is most likely spread.

The agency now says COVID-19 is not easily spread by touching contaminated surfaces or commonly shared objects.

CDC officials stress that while the risk is low there is still a chance a person could get coronavirus if they touch a contaminated surface. However, they say the main threat continues to be through person-to-person contact.
 
Yes. Unless you know you are infected and your intent was to infect others.

Many, if not most carriers of Covid-19, are entirely asymptomatic.
 
Many, if not most carriers of Covid-19, are entirely asymptomatic.

Yes. But you have no Constitutional right to be free from a communicable disease or virus. Tens of thousands die from the flu every year. You can get serious infections and even pneumonia from a common cold. Your fear and ignorance doesnt grant you the power to destroy my freedom. Sorry.
 
Yes. But you have no Constitutional right to be free from a communicable disease or virus. Tens of thousands die from the flu every year. You can get serious infections and even pneumonia from a common cold. Your fear and ignorance doesnt grant you the power to destroy my freedom. Sorry.

So you are now in favor of throwing out the fifth amendment? I think that is a bad idea.
 
Okay then, we're clear on that. It's my right to cough near to your face if I'm infected with Ebola, Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Typhoid or Covid-19, right?

How ridiculous. Anybody that knows they are infected and coughs on a person is guilty of assault. Not wearing a mask is not even slightly analogous.
 
Many, if not most carriers of Covid-19, are entirely asymptomatic.

If that's true, then covid-19 is basically harmless, which the fatality rate would seem to support.
 
Yes. But you have no Constitutional right to be free from a communicable disease or virus. Tens of thousands die from the flu every year. You can get serious infections and even pneumonia from a common cold. Your fear and ignorance doesnt grant you the power to destroy my freedom. Sorry.

"you have no Constitutional right to be free from a communicable disease or virus" that's just comedy gold, Fletch. Did I ever say I had a Constitutional right to be free from a communicable disease or virus? LOL! I'll try to get you back on target here with a little refresher.

Actually, it is our right not to wear a mask just like it's a right not to own a gun for personal protection.


It was to this comment that I replied and what was clearly stated is that if 'apdst' feels it's his right not to wear a mask, then I could possibly transmit a fatal respiratory disease to him even if I didn't know I had one. Got it now? Simply put, it's his right not to wear a mask if he's willing to take the risk that someone next to him has no symptoms but is carrying this virus and can transmit it easily to him merely by speaking in a normal voice if they're within a few feet of his mouth, nose or eyes.
 
How ridiculous. Anybody that knows they are infected and coughs on a person is guilty of assault. Not wearing a mask is not even slightly analogous.

Oh...you.. :inandout:
 
if wearing a mask for the sake of public health is mandated, you have no legal way out

that depends on the constitutional power of whatever demands you wear a mask
 
So you are now in favor of throwing out the fifth amendment? I think that is a bad idea.

explain your fifth amendment argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom