@freemo @Pat At least I have the Constitution

@se7en

Sadly the constitution says very little on the topic. It doesnt even provide provisions for bodily autonomy in any sense, which is why abortion can be legal or illegal and neither is a constitional violation, it just isnt an area the constititon addresses very well except in vagaries.

@Pat

@se7en @freemo

The joke was referring the Declaration of Independence.

Terrance, I'm sorry I don't understand your toot.

Freemo, The Constitution was written (originally) in a way that just listed what the powers of the branches of government are -- what they can do. The assumption was that anything else beyond those enumerated powers was prohibited to the federal government. (i.e., it was left up to the states to sort out in each of their constitutions and other laws.) The Constitution doesn't give the feds the power to force people to submit to any medical procedures, so they can't.

However, when the document was sent to the states for ratification, they balked and requested an explicit and specific restrictions on fed power. This became the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment specifically says that any power not granted to the feds (or prohibited to the states) "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now the question is: what does that mean? Does the power go to the states or the people?

The states have plenary power under the US Constitution which means that any power not mentioned goes to the states, and if a state constitution doesn't say anything about, then it belongs to the people.

But there are also explicit rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which have over time been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment to restrict the states also.

Of those, "equal protection of the law", "due process of the law", "privileges and Immunities" (and "privileges or Immunities") are possibly applicable re forced vaxing. E.I. the feds can't, e.g., deny rights to people based on their vax status (but they can do things to protect others from those don't get vaxed, though.)

(Note: Due to the Slaughterhouse decisions a long time ago, the equal protection clause hasn't been the route the Supremes have taken historically.)

@Pat

While that does get the general gist of it I want to point out, the constitution, even without considering the amendments including the bill of rights, lists both the powers of the central government as well as things it can not do in quite a few places. The idea that it exclusdes limitations in its power (and that is solely done int he bill of rights) isnt correct.

But that is a minor enough detail.

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

Yes, you're probably referring to Article IV. But my toot was already long enough. :)

@Pat

It is not restricted to a single article. I can think of examples across several articles, in fact there are examples all over the constitition.

Article IV aside another is Article 10, which restricts the ability of the federal government to suspend habius corpus. In fact there is probably an example of a limitation of the governments rights in every, or at least most, articles, at least in some form.

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

There is no Article 10.

???

@Pat

Sorry Article I, Section 10

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

Yes. Section 9 and 10 has some stuff in it limiting the states.

@Pat @se7en Limiting the states AND the federal gov't, which like i said is in a lot of the Constitution. The limitation on the federal govt to not be able to suspend habeus corpus is a restriction on the federal govt as well as the states.

@freemo @se7en

>"The limitation on the federal govt to not be able to suspend habeus corpus is a restriction on the federal govt as well as the states."

Yes, but there's a loophole.

@Pat

Its still a restriction.

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

I lot of folks who bring up Lincoln's use of HC after the southern states had left the US to go form a foreign country (the Confederacy), don't understand that his use of HC was actually constitutional (he used that loophole).

@Pat

The restriction only applies when it isnt wartime. So its not really a loophole, its how it was intended to be. Its still a restriction though either way.

@se7en

@freemo @Pat @se7en where in the constitution does it say inalienable rights can be suspended as long as they claim there is a war?

@icedquinn

Right in the constitution, Article I, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

@se7en @Pat

@freemo @icedquinn @Pat

>People: If you don't like the United States, you can get out!
>President Davis: Ok.
>President Lincoln: You what, nigga?

The United States as a voulentary union of states was killed by the traitor Lincoln, and nailed into law by the abysmal 14th Amendment.

Enjoy your Federal Citizenship.

@se7en @freemo @Pat the later amendments then go on to say you have to be given due process, so.

@icedquinn

Due process is suspended by war too, its what lets me shoot you in the face if I consider you the enemy even if you arent actively aiming a gun at me. The constitution makes alot of exceptions for war time, you get some limited due process of course, but much of it, like habeus corpus can be suspended.

Now to be clear it is only during **invasion** or **rebellion**. So the war has to be on american soil in order to suspend the right. Which seems like a fair distinction.

@se7en @Pat

@se7en

Its the day "These United States of America" turned into "The United States of America" :)

@icedquinn @Pat

@freemo @Pat Lincoln commited treason when he suspended Habius Corpus during The War of Northern Aggression.

@se7en @freemo

Abe used Habeas corpus, he didn't suspend it. You're probably referring to the due process required when HC is used the gov. to bring people into custody.

Not sure what that has to vax though.

@Pat @freemo I was replying to a single post of this interesting conversation of people who legitimately say "At least I have the constitution"
Conservatism is.png

@se7en @freemo @Pat He won though. The victor writes the history.

@Simpadoo @se7en @freemo

That was written long before the Civil War.

@freemo @Pat oes it matter if every amendment of The Bill of Rights, except the Third Amendment, have been "reinterpreted" though numerous acts, regulation, and unlawful administrative sub-government agency policies?

@se7en @freemo

Yes. My toot was mostly referring to what the document actually says, not what the Supremes and regulative agencies say it says.

@freemo @Pat
>they got it wrong but i'm a cuck so i'll submit to it anyway, it's the law!

@Eris @freemo @Pat the dilemma of the Lawful Good

@Eris @freemo @Pat the dilemma of the Lawful Good

@Jackuu @Pat @freemo >good

@Eris @Pat @freemo shit man, at this point I’m even willing to

>lawful

at them as well

@Pat Who was that?

@freemo

>"Who was that?"

I just blocked "seven" because he used the N-word. I don't have time for that.

@Pat oh I must have missed that. Did he use it offensively? I saw the use of "nigga" but it didnt seem to be used in an offensive way to me.

Or am I missing something. I usually block for offensive uses of the word myself. Blocked a few today already.

@freemo

Almost any use of the N-word is offensive. It's an epithet. By definition it is offensive.

Possibly the only exception is the way use just used it in a meta way and you couldn't use the alternate "N-word" because you were differentiating between two different forms of the word.

I don't have patience for racists.

@Pat understandable. For me it has to be used with racist /hateful/negative intent before its an issue, though at that point I will block. But to each their own, I cant understand your position as well.

@freemo

I assume those guys are opposed to classical liberalism and libertarian ideas in general and that they simply want to try to invoke negative feelings in anyone who expresses support for liberty.

Didn't work. :)

Well the FSE group in general tends to be a bit trolly.

@freemo

Well, I didn't bite (I just nibbled), but they took the bait.

(Refer the OP -- "nibble").

@Pat @freemo Offense is taken, not given.

@Eris @Pat @freemo shut up, nigger.

@Pat @freemo

N

@Pat Nigger

@Pat I block whole racistic domains. It's surprising how many there are in the Fediverse. I simply don't have the patience for that shit.