• 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

minnie616 said:
Actually , You Are the one who is missing the point.

The majority of Michiganders agree with Governor Whitmir’s EOs to protect the health of our citizens during this pandemic.
Click to expand...

You are making exactly the same arguments that the South made in defense of slavery - government laws and the will of the majority of the state. Yes, the shutdown orders do kill people - on a unilateral executive order and supported by the majority of the people.

It was was mostly Democrats who supported elimination of rights and sacrificing people in promotion of slavery on behalf of the richest people in the USA.. It is mostly Democrats now who support the elimination of rights and sacrificing people in promoting of the best interests of the richest people in the USA.

You are justifying forcing peoples lives destroyed and for people to die being unable to afford vital medical care and in other ways - citing total dictatorial government power by one person and will of the majority as justification - although none of this was ever voted on by anyone - voters or their legislative representatives. So why not just eliminate the Michigan state legislature and have her be dictator over everything?

Unlike for slavery supported by laws passed by democratically elected officials, you support summary totalitarian power by one person never supported by laws or the Michigan legislature on behalf of dictatorial power claiming support of the majority -although not one person voted for this nor did one of their elected representatives in the legislature.

Your governor could have asked the Michigan legislator to pass a law applying her orders specifically - but never had done so preferring to be a total all-powerful tyrant. She has no intention of allowing any political debate or democratic process. She wants and took total power over everyone's life singularly herself. Please never post about supporting democracy or civil rights. You support dictatorship and majority rule.

The entire concept of individual, civil and human rights is to fully eliminate both the power of the government and the power of the will of the majority.
 
Fletch said:
The governor has the moral and legal obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of the people. That is the moral argument you are ignoring in favor of despostism.
Click to expand...

And she is protecting our rights and our health.
 
Fletch said:
No it doesnt. Its not even close. Belgium is the worst by far. The UK, Spain, France and Italy are all worse than Sweden--not that the introduction of facts will matter to you.
Click to expand...

Sweden
 
joko104 said:
You are making exactly the same arguments that the South made in defense of slavery - ...
Click to expand...

False, Michigan’s State Constitution is protecting our rights.

Our Governor is taking precautions During a pandemic for the health and safety of our Citizens.

Do you really equate Health and safety with slavery ?
 
minnie616 said:
Actually, that should not be the claim.

The claim is Bodily autonomy.

We do not have unlimited bodily integrity.

There are seatbelt laws.
Traffic laws.

No shirt , no service laws, and during a pandemic some states have no masKs no service in places of businesses.
Click to expand...

driving is a privilege on public roads
businesses have certain rights concerning their property
 
minnie616 said:
False, Michigan’s State Constitution is protecting our rights.

Our Governor is taking precautions During a pandemic for the health and safety of our Citizens.

Do you really equate Health and safety with slavery ?
Click to expand...

No difference. Slavery was constitutional. Slavery vastly benefited the majority in Southern states. It is likely white people lived much longer in the rural south than they and their children working in Northern child labor sweatshops and in coal mines of no protective laws whatsoever.

Under the language of the Michigan constitution, your governor could order slavery, could order mass executions, could order about anything merely by declaring an emergency. You assert the shutdown orders save lives. I claim that is absurd. The shut down orders kill people, not just financially ruin them. If a person can't afford the co-pay for heart surgery, cancer treatment or critical prescription drugs such as costly insulin because the governor ordered them into abject poverty, no income, evicted so have no home. The Michigan governor has sacrificed their lives claiming this is for your benefit. Same for slavery, other than specific laws passed by elected legislators legalized slavery. Because you think it protects you, you favor their lives being sacrificed for you.

How valuable is your life compared to others? How many should die for you? How many should become homeless for you? How many have to lose everything they have for your benefit? Just how much more do you claim your life more valuable than others? 30 year olds with families face virtually no risk from covid-19. But you claim they should lose everything, literally everything, become homeless, no medical care, no food, lose their home, their vehicle - because you think that makes you safer. You support their essentially being your slaves, even if it cost them their lives to be your - and the governor's - slaves.

In your reasoning, if slavery saved lives more than cost lives, you would be a Democrat supporting slavery. It is irrelevant how slaves were affected. Slavery did save lives of the majority, ie white people, by allowing them to get out of coal mines and extremely dangerous factory work.

We both know why the Michigan governor never put this to the vote of the state legislature, don't we?
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
No difference. Slavery was constitutional. Slavery vastly benefited the majority in Southern states. It is likely white people lived much longer in the rural south than they and their children working in Northern child labor sweatshops and in coal mines of no protective laws whatsoever.

Under the language of the Michigan constitution, your governor could order slavery, could order mass executions, could order about anything merely by declaring an emergency. You assert the shutdown orders save lives. I claim that is absurd. The shut down orders kill people, not just financially ruin them. If a person can't afford the co-pay for heart surgery, cancer treatment or critical prescription drugs such as costly insulin because the governor ordered them into abject poverty, no income, evicted so have no home. The Michigan governor has sacrificed their lives claiming this is for your benefit. Same for slavery, other than specific laws passed by elected legislators legalized slavery. Because you think it protects you, you favor their lives being sacrificed for you.

How valuable is your life compared to others? How many should die for you? How many should become homeless for you? How many have to lose everything they have for your benefit? Just how much more do you claim your life more valuable than others? 30 year olds with families face virtually no risk from covid-19. But you claim they should lose everything, literally everything, become homeless, no medical care, no food, lose their home, their vehicle - because you think that makes you safer. You support their essentially being your slaves, even if it cost them their lives to be your - and the governor's - slaves.

In your reasoning, if slavery saved lives more than cost lives, you would be a Democrat supporting slavery. It is irrelevant how slaves were affected. Slavery did save lives of the majority, ie white people, by allowing them to get out of coal mines and extremely dangerous factory work.

We both know why the Michigan governor never put this to the vote of the state legislature, don't we?
Click to expand...

You are taking this to an absurd extreme. If you read the 14th amendment, you will see that your rights are protected from the state doing anything that is unreasonable to deprive you of your liberty (also life or property). You can file a motion and have it sent to your attorney general, which may then go through your state's supreme court, arguing that your 14th amendment rights are being violated. The state justice will then determine whether the current state order is unreasonable based on the pandemic that is occurring.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
And she is protecting our rights and our health.
Click to expand...

No, the Constitution does not lay out your rights with the caveat that they can be quashed should an emergency pop up. China can do whatever it wants when an emergency pops up. The US cant because we have rights and they dont. Your rights dont end because a governor concocts an excuse to end them. For instance, if a governor declared that all abortion will end in your state until the crisis has passed, you would go out of your mind. And rightly so. You just cant see beyond that for some reason.
 
Fletch said:
No, the Constitution does not lay out your rights with the caveat that they can be quashed should an emergency pop up.
Click to expand...
You are again incorrect. The 10th amendment reserves rights for the state for situations that are not covered within the U.S. constitution. A health crisis does not have laws provided by the U.S. constitution, therefore it is up to the state a person resides in to provide reasonable protections to the people of that state from the health crisis. Again, if you feel the protections are unreasonable, you have the right to argue that within your state's courts. Nothing is stopping you from fighting for the rights you feel are being oppressed.
 
eman623 said:
Liberals don't care what you do, but only as long as it's compulsory by the state.
Click to expand...

Says a guy aligned with the party of the "Patriot Act". Folks who kept yelling at everyone else, "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide" to help push it along.
 
Court Jester said:
"My body my choice". Isn't that the alter the liberals worship at?

In today's world many jurisdictions cannot even enforce laws requiring people with AID/HIV to disclose their condition, warn a sex partner, wear a condom, or refrain from donating blood. And people really think it is constitutional to force someone to wear a cloth or paper mask which doesn't stop the virus anyway?

Click to expand...


the purpose of this thread is to discuss the constitutional validity of temporary emergency public health mandates. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rationale personally; what matters is your compliance with those mandates where they exist.
 
Xilnik said:
You are again incorrect. The 10th amendment reserves rights for the state for situations that are not covered within the U.S. constitution. A health crisis does not have laws provided by the U.S. constitution, therefore it is up to the state a person resides in to provide reasonable protections to the people of that state from the health crisis. Again, if you feel the protections are unreasonable, you have the right to argue that within your state's courts. Nothing is stopping you from fighting for the rights you feel are being oppressed.
Click to expand...

You seem to have no idea what the Constitution says or what its purpose it. THe Constitution is a document written to limit the power of the federal government and to enshrine rights in the people. The Tenth Amendment simply reserve rights not spelled out in the Constitution to the people and the states. It does not turn over to the states the power to violate those rights. What is happening is that the states have declared emergencies and are suspending the rights of the people. You might argue that each state may possess emergency powers but even then, those powers should be very limited in scope and duration. This is something people of this country should be united on. But we are clearly not. You guys on the left seem to look for ways to support the suspension of your rights by the state. If thats your goal, move to China.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I wasn't being fair to you. I see that you're new to the forum and we usually go easy on new guys....for a bit :)

"......However, mounting evidence suggests that aerosols may spur transmission more than once thought, and these smaller particles "can remain aloft for a considerable amount of time," on the order of hours, said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist and head of the Climate and Health Program at Columbia University in New York City. ..."
COVID-19 may spread through breathing and talking — but we don't know how much | Live Science

So, if an infected person WITH A MASK speaks or coughs, they STILL put COVID-19 into the air through the mask...

"...That leaves fabric masks, which currently are recommended for general use by the CDC. Fabric masks also allow air in around the sides but lack non-woven, moisture-repelling layers. They impede only about 2% of airflow in, Chu said...... If viral particles are nearby, they have an easy path around a surgical or fabric mask. And in the case of a fabric mask, wearers may well be wafting in particles small enough to flow right through the fabric."...
Do face masks really reduce coronavirus spread? Experts have mixed answers. | Live Science

...and others in the aria also wearing a surgical/cloth mask can still easily pick up COVID-19.

While it's true that homemade masks may somewhat reduce the spread of covid-19 through that single vector, masks detract from more important and more effective preventative measures such as hand washing and self-quarantine if symptoms arise.

********
Regarding my refusal to wear a mask at work (a factory/warehouse), I posit that the mask fogging up my eye protection and impeeding vision is a greater safety hazard than covid-19 itself due to all the heavy equipment traffic we workaround. COVID-19 is the lesser evil to getting run over.
Click to expand...

you say "While it's true that homemade masks may somewhat reduce the spread of covid-19 through that single vector, masks detract from more important and more effective preventative measures such as hand washing and self-quarantine if symptoms arise." do you statistics on this claim?
 
Fletch said:
You seem to have no idea what the Constitution says or what its purpose it. THe Constitution is a document written to limit the power of the federal government and to enshrine rights in the people. The Tenth Amendment simply reserve rights not spelled out in the Constitution to the people and the states. It does not turn over to the states the power to violate those rights. What is happening is that the states have declared emergencies and are suspending the rights of the people. You might argue that each state may possess emergency powers but even then, those powers should be very limited in scope and duration. This is something people of this country should be united on. But we are clearly not. You guys on the left seem to look for ways to support the suspension of your rights by the state. If thats your goal, move to China.
Click to expand...

"You guys on the left" does not apply to me.

"You might argue that each state may possess emergency powers but even then, those powers should be very limited in scope and duration." I refer you to the 14th amendment. That is its purpose.

"You seem to have no idea what the Constitution says or what its purpose [is]." Really? Why is it that you keep making statements that contradict it and fail to point to the areas of the constitution that actually apply to your arguments? I happen to agree with many of the points you make, but you and others keep also making hyperbolic points that are actually well handled within the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
I'm not worried about getting it because I'm not in a risk demographic.

But surgical/cloth masks are about protecting others, not yourself, and so I think you will find that this entire covid-19 forum boils down to 'sacrifice in service to the community' vs 'Darwinian self-interest'.

Presuming that dynamic, I land on the 'Darwinian self-interest' side. I wear a seatbelt to protect myself, not necessarily others. I carry a gun to protect myself, not necessarily others. I take precautions against covid-19 to protect myself, not necessarily others. My refusal to wear a mask at work is about keeping myself from being hit, not necessarily others.
Click to expand...

are you really that uncivilized?
 
Court Jester said:
"My body my choice". Isn't that the alter the liberals worship at?

In today's world many jurisdictions cannot even enforce laws requiring people with AID/HIV to disclose their condition, warn a sex partner, wear a condom, or refrain from donating blood. And people really think it is constitutional to force someone to wear a cloth or paper mask which doesn't stop the virus anyway?

Click to expand...

just because some areas have inadequate law enforcement capability, the legality of emergency public health mandates is not in question
 
ldsrptcvt said:
the purpose of this thread is to discuss the constitutional validity of temporary emergency public health mandates. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rationale personally; what matters is your compliance with those mandates where they exist.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget where you are. This is America. Compliance to arbitrary and despotic laws is not something we do here.
 
joko104 said:
You actually believe those are photos of those two viruses, don't you? :lol:
Click to expand...

they are illustrations designed to help uneducated people see what they would not be able to recognize through a microscope. Using a microscope takes practice.
 
joko104 said:
The US Surgeon General went on TV claiming that ordinary people wearing masks would more spread covid-19 than prevent it. But he's black so most white progressives are certain he needs white progressives to tell him what to do, rather that he as an inferior black men telling them what to do. Black people need white people to tell them now to protect themselves, not the other way around to most progressives.
Click to expand...

what are you babbling about?
 
Mika-El said:
With due respect you take a 1905 case and assume how it will be interpreted in all pandemics. It might not be that easy. Interstingly the wording in that case is very similar to section 1in our Canadian Charter of Rights which would also give our government the right to impose certain behaviours on all citizens to protect the public.

So far in Canada our Charter has only been used to protect and enforce individual rights whenever possible. Its never been used to over-run or suspend a right. Technically as well provinces have another section they have never used they could activate to try impose a law on people the Charter would not otherwise allow.

Our Charter's drafters Prof. Hogg and then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau never thought the Charter would be used the way it is to as widely as possible be applied to protect individual rights. That exercise of widely applying the Charter to protect individuals is heavily influenced by the US Supreme Court approach sometimes referred to as the activist approach.

As a general rule despite the US being a country that has a very strong military culture unlike Canada where we respect military but in a much more low key manner without the classic Yank swagger or open pride, the US legal approach to individual rights to date has avoided government taking away individual rights. The US was created rebelling against an oppressive government and having a distrust of too much government power whereas Canada was founded by people loyal to the King and his powers. In spite of that huge difference and Canadians being willing to accept government imposition by the King.

That said our approach has followed the Americans with individual rights. The US to date has some of the strongest cases in the world making statements about individual rights and so numerous cases could be used to argue limits to this 1905 case.

However it is a very important case for the reasons stated.

Politically forcing people to stay at home, wear masks can't work. For it to work you need to get the vast majority to voluntarily buy in. You do not have sufficient police to go around arresting non compliant people.

So in theory even if a government has a power enforcing it depends on practical limitations.

As a Canadian I share the concern many Americans have with too much government initiated and enforced powers. History shows they start off well intended in the name of benevolence but soon morph into tyranny. Democracy is fragile. It can be easily compromised by too much or too little regulation. How you balance the two is the question.
Click to expand...

the case has never been overturned, and any lapses in law enforcement does not preclude its legality
 
Fletch said:
No, Im not missing anything. You are making a political argument and I am making a moral argument.
Click to expand...

tyranny is not a concept of morality; it is a form of government
 
ldsrptcvt said:
what are you babbling about?
Click to expand...

Facts, but Joe Biden ordered you to reject all facts - so that's what you submissively do. Facts are the enemy of your secular ideology.
 
ldsrptcvt said:
tyranny is not a concept of morality; it is a form of government
Click to expand...

WOW! I am confident you believe that too - that morality is irrelevant to government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom