• 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

Wayne Jr said:
Right, it MAY protect others, but that's not the main reason I wear it.
Click to expand...

that's where we are different - protecting others is the only reason I wear a seat belt; I don't when I'm alone
 
ldsrptcvt said:
that's where we are different - protecting others is the only reason I wear a seat belt; I don't when I'm alone
Click to expand...

And you don't see me insisting that you're drunk or telling you that you 'need help' (as others seem to think is appropriate to say to me) because of it, either. Your body, your choice.
 
Fletch said:
I doubt the Michigan Court of Claims will be the last word on this. But I think it would be in the interests of all states and all Americans to figure out what the limits of these emergency powers are. The law was written in 1905. MIght be time for an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Well , she has been taken to court 3 times over her stay at home orders and the most recent was when the republican legislators filed their complaints.
The court sided with Whitmer on May 20,2020.



From ABC third time court ruled in Whitmirs favor

The Legislature said Whitmer violated the '76 law, which says lawmakers get a role in emergency declarations after 28 days. Indeed, the judge said the governor can't use that law to extend emergencies without input from lawmakers. But Whitmer won the case anyway.

Stephens' decision was a third time that a Court of Claims judge has ruled in the governor's favor.
The other lawsuits were brought by residents, a business owner and a new group that has organized protests at the Capitol.
Click to expand...


Michigan governor wins legal fight with lawmakers over virus - ABC News
 
minnie616 said:
Well , she has been taken to court 3 times over her stay at home orders and the most recent was when the republican legislators filed their complaints.
The court sided with Whitmer on May 20,2020.



From ABC third time court ruled in Whitmirs favor




Michigan governor wins legal fight with lawmakers over virus - ABC News
Click to expand...

Not sure why you see this as a good thing, nor do I understand the judges reasoning. I understand emergency powers, but those have to have a limit in scope and duration or they are just despotic. Bringing in the legislature after 28 days seems a reasonable way to prevent that and to safeguard the rights of the people.
 
ldsrptcvt said:
A police officer I know made me aware of something most people don't think about. If the driver is not wearing a seat belt and is involved in a collision, he is likely to be thrown out of his seat, lose all control of the car and make the accident worse.
Click to expand...


If a car is in such a bad accident the driver would be thrown out of the car, the driver already lost control before being thrown out.
 
Wayne Jr said:
And you don't see me insisting that you're drunk or telling you that you 'need help' (as others seem to think is appropriate to say to me) because of it, either. Your body, your choice.
Click to expand...

My comment had nothing to do with whether you want to wear a mask or a seat belt. That is still your choice.

Wayne Jr said:
I take precautions against covid-19 to protect myself, not necessarily others.
Click to expand...
I am actually fine with that answer. At least you try not to catch COVID-19, so that will reduce the chances of you exposing others.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure why you see this as a good thing, nor do I understand the judges reasoning. I understand emergency powers, but those have to have a limit in scope and duration or they are just despotic. Bringing in the legislature after 28 days seems a reasonable way to prevent that and to safeguard the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Gee , when Governor Snyder took office in 2011 he used his emergency powers to appoint new city managers for Detroit and Flint.

Detroit had to file for Bankruptcy and the Flint City managers ended up discontinuing Detroit City and using the Flint River as its water Source ( instead Detroit City water) which led to the Lead poisoning of many of the residents of Flint.

But now we are supposed to worry about the poor unfortunate souls who feel their rights are being trampled on because they are asked to wear a mask inside a business to protect their fellow citizens.

Wearing a mask vs drinking water poisoned with lead ......
 
minnie616 said:
Gee , when Governor Snyder took office in 2011 he used his emergency powers to appoint new city managers for Detroit and Flint.

Detroit had to file for Bankruptcy and the Flint City managers ended up discontinuing Detroit City and using the Flint River as its water Source ( instead Detroit City water) which led to the Lead poisoning of many of the residents of Flint.

But now we are supposed to worry about the poor unfortunate souls who feel their rights are being trampled on because they are asked to wear a mask inside a business to protect their fellow citizens.

Wearing a mask vs drinking water poisoned with lead ......
Click to expand...

I should have just had a conversation with the wall. Ill know better next time.
 
Xilnik said:
It was horribly handled. I understand what happened, but I do not understand why it became a game of telephone. The concern was that people would buy N95 and other medical masks, reducing the masks needed by medical personnel who are treating patients. By those medical personnel not having masks, they would be exposed to COVID-19 and spread it to their patients while pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Buying the masks was a health hazard for that reason, not because the masks themselves were dangerous, but because funneling masks to average people away from health workers was hazardous. I completely understand what was meant, but the way it was conveyed to the general public was extremely misleading. Also, the people who were conveying the information clearly did not understand the risks and made stuff up when asked. Your confusion is well founded.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just saving N95 masks for medical professionals, the experts, the Surgeon General, were telling us the masks posed a health hazard to the wearers

It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus. You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a healthcare provider.
Click to expand...
 
Rawley said:
It wasn't just saving N95 masks for medical professionals, the experts, the Surgeon General, were telling us the masks posed a health hazard to the wearers
Click to expand...

There were good points for that too. Even after they changed their mind and everyone started wearing masks, watching the task force briefings was painful. So many people in the media were fiddling with their masks, pulling them down from the front to speak into the microphone and then pushing them back up, or keeping them below their chins. The argument that most people who wear masks do so incorrectly, and increase the risk of exposure instead of decreasing it, is a strong argument.

I believe people who wear them correctly and follow proper protocols all around offer more protection to the general public than those who are less cautious or shirk wearing masks altogether to prove a point.
 
joko104 said:
If a car is in such a bad accident the driver would be thrown out of the car, the driver already lost control before being thrown out.
Click to expand...

not thrown out of the car, just thrown toward the passenger side is enough to make things worse
 
Rawley said:
It wasn't just saving N95 masks for medical professionals, the experts, the Surgeon General, were telling us the masks posed a health hazard to the wearers
Click to expand...

I think that quote is beyond it's expiration date
 
ldsrptcvt said:
I think that quote is beyond it's expiration date
Click to expand...

It's amazing when people embrace only the science that supports their ideological positions. Just amazing.
 
Rawley said:
It's amazing when people embrace only the science that supports their ideological positions. Just amazing.
Click to expand...

pioneers often have to change the 'accepted narrative'
 
ldsrptcvt said:
pioneers often have to change the 'accepted narrative'
Click to expand...

Some actual science supporting the wearing of masks might be nice. Taking it as an article of faith doesn't work when you are stomping all over people's freedoms.
 
ldsrptcvt said:
which religion is that?
Click to expand...

Whichever one suits me at the time. My opposition to the false God of Islam requires I not acquiesce to their heathen niqab customs. I change them as often as some people do their gender. If that doesn't work then I will go with the Americans With Disabilities Act. If the damn comfort turkey on the airline seat beside me doesn't have to wear a mask then I shouldn't have to due to my panic attacks at wearing a mask while sitting beside a turkey.
 
Drawdown said:
Whichever one suits me at the time. My opposition to the false God of Islam requires I not acquiesce to their heathen niqab customs. I change them as often as some people do their gender. If that doesn't work then I will go with the Americans With Disabilities Act. If the damn comfort turkey on the airline seat beside me doesn't have to wear a mask then I shouldn't have to due to my panic attacks at wearing a mask while sitting beside a turkey.
Click to expand...

congratulations for being a slippery eel - I guess some people would admire that
 
ldsrptcvt said:
The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution.

Here is a decision involving public health:

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a*United States Supreme Court*case presided over by Judge John Marshall Harlan. The decision gave the collective citizenry the right to protect itself:

“Harlan ruled that personal liberties could be suspended when "the safety of the general public may demand" for example during a smallpox outbreak.[7]*He compared the smallpox outbreak to the*American Civil War*(in which three out of nine Justices at the term served) by saying that a community has the right to protect itself from both disease and military invasion.[6] “

This decision has never been overturned.

To read more about it go to U.S. Reports: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). | Library of Congress
Click to expand...

In regards to the thread title/question, I wonder if the Court considered mask wearing as an issue? I wonder if the court considered the efficacy of mask wearing in such an epidemic? I wonder if the court considered that the infection was pretty much the same or better than the annual flu?
 
Rawley said:
Some actual science supporting the wearing of masks might be nice. Taking it as an article of faith doesn't work when you are stomping all over people's freedoms.
Click to expand...

Freedoms?

The Patriot Act may have taking some freedoms away but wearing a mask during a pandemic is a matter of respect for businesses and fellow citizens.

Just as no shirt no shoes policy is.
 
minnie616 said:
Freedoms?

The Patriot Act may have taking some freedoms away but wearing a mask during a pandemic is a matter of respect for businesses and fellow citizens.

Just as no shirt no shoes policy is.
Click to expand...

I face the threat of imprisonment if I walk out of my house without a mask. Nothing to do with businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom