04-16-2020, 09:54 PM
(04-16-2020, 09:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Anyone else here the governor of New Jersey say understanding the Bill of Rights is above his pay grade?
I don't know the context of his statement, but unless he's an attorney, it might very well be. I mean, does anyone think DJT could give anyone a passable interpretation of any constitutional law argument without consulting an aide? Just because a person is elected doesn't mean they know jack about the document. The last time we elected an actual constitutional lawyer president, all of the alleged lovers of the all things constitutional hated his guts.
Given the scenario we're in, I'm not sure if the people challenging the governors have real cases or not. What the majority of social media Constitutional law professors all seem to forget is that although they are granted rights in the document, most if not all of them have limits in extreme and outlying situations. Examples:
You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to terroristic threatening, fighting words (in terms of what the law deems them to be), libel or slander of a private citizen, or the use of any speech that can be a clear and present danger to the public (yelling "fire": in a crowded theater).
You have the right to bear arms. You do not have the right to own automatic weapons. You can't buy a nuclear bomb. You also don't have the right to shoot whoever you want with them. Even shooting a home invader has the potential to land you in jail if a court sees fit.
Free assembly is the most frequent one I hear being argued when it comes to corona shutdown angst. First off, free assembly is guaranteed only to peaceable gatherings. It also, like free speech can be taken away when the assembly in question poses a clear and present danger. Is corona a clear and present danger? Is their assembly threatening the safety of people who come in contact with them that weren't even involved? Would a judge say so? I think you could argue it either way.
If these people end up infected in a couple of weeks, they're going to look pretty moronic. If they spread it and someone dies, and the case can be traced to a gathering that took place against the state's advice, I'd like to see them prosecuted for public endangerment or manslaughter. It will never happen, but it should. They were told the risks for months and still took it upon themselves to do something that has the potential to kill. IMO that's no different than someone getting behind the wheel after drinking 10 beers and running over a stranger.