Re:The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is bein...
by wpietri on Monday April 27, 2020 @07:29PM
(#23001447)
If you're really interested in the topic, the podcast "All the President's Lawyers" discussed that this week. But in short, you can't read a couple of sentences from the constitution literally and expect that to override a couple hundred years of judicial interpretation.
Regarding the first amendment in particular, one relevant area of law is "time, place, and manner". E.g., just because you have free speech doesn't mean that you can go outside at 3 am with a bullhorn and start ranting; the cops can rightly cite or arrest you. More here: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place...
Re:The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is bein...
by cabaalis on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @01:59PM
(#23009838)
Thank you, this was very helpful. Also glad to see a link to my alma mater.
Re:The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is bein...
by the_watcher on Monday April 27, 2020 @07:32PM
(#23001470)
Freedom of assembly (and to a lesser extent, at least by precise Constitutional language, freedom to exercise religion) have Constitutional protections (that may or may not be unlimited, depending on the justice you're asking). There is no Constitutional protection for running a business or being able to patronize a given business. So protests in public and worship may be protected, but your neighborhood bar is not.
Re:The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is bein...
by walterbell on Monday April 27, 2020 @07:47PM
(#23001616)
Fortunately for lawyers seeking good test cases, there's a rather long list of businesses which have been shut down. California may have more religions per capita than most places.
Re:The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is bein...
by dsfyu404ed on Monday April 27, 2020 @07:10PM
(#23001264)
State's usually have laws to the tune of "if X happens then the emergency is extra super legit and the governor's orders carry the force of law" where X may or may not include a legislature vote and these laws have been exercised sparingly and in good enough taste (i.e. in actual emergencies) that they haven't been challenged much so they live in the same constitutional gray area that many obvious affronts to the text of the constitution live in.
IANAL, but I know some of you are so I'm asking here. I've read that challenges to these orders will not succeed because of emergency declarations. The emergency declarations are supposedly backed by some law, correct?
Don't we have a document in the national archives that guarantees things like peaceable assembly and not prohibiting exercise of religion? Yet we have people being arrested or cited for assembling, and pastors being put under arrest for holding church? Is it the temporary nature that allows this to be done?
Regarding the law that allows this kind of stuff, how does that compare to a constitution which says "congress shall make no law ..."?