Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Also, "50 independent, sovereign, continental ..." it was 1866. There weren't 50 anything then. Alaska wasn't even purchased until 1867, nevermind Hawaii and that the Dakotas were a single territory at the time.
Hijacking top comment with what I've found. Seems the second part circled in red may be referring to a constitutional law encyclopedia. Seeing listings on eBay and Amazon for various volumes but not definitive source of the text to confirm that is where it is from. However it is referenced/cited in quite a few sites sometimes as 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 98 or some variation. Looks like this was published in 1962 and has 140 volumes in the second edition (this particular text from volume 16, section 98).
Overall, interesting bit of reading I've done tonight LOL. Section 97 of that same volume seems like it would be helpful if having to actually address such a case in court though obviously I'm not a lawyer, or versed in any of those things whatsoever.
So this is bad law at this point. The lockdowns are being justified as constitutional right now under current precedent. The main case is jacobsen v. Massachusetts https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/.
Essentially the argument is that the power to quarantine/isolate and enact other public health laws falls under the police power of the state. Now this power isn’t absolute, it can’t be used in a racially invidious way or in a way that is so broad that it can’t be said to be a legitimate effective effort to reach the goals the state asserts.
I edit: I’m in public health law right now so I’ve had to endure dealing with this shit all semester.
So I did some digging on the OP and found some interesting text. Out of curiosity, since you cite there is some case as precedent for them being constitutional, does that make the legal encyclopedias flat out wrong? Specifically it seems American Jurisprudence volume 16, sections 71 & 98 could sway that (especially adding in what I saw from section 97). Granted, I'm going by what I can find online for free since it seems I'd need a LexisNexis account to actually view it.
Section 71:
“It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise. NO emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
Section 98:
“…Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of an emergency…”
Section 97:
"...That a Constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of a Citizen is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to both person and property."
EDIT: I skimmed the case you linked, seems that is regarding a smallpox vaccine and being exempt. Not sure how that would directly relate to COVID-19 and lockdowns. Ugh, as I'm reading more I see the bit wrt police power and such bullshit. Has any case like this actually gone to court recently?
The way the law encyclopedia is being interpreted is too broad, and it predates modern jurisprudence.
The case cited, ex parte Milligan, was about the federal government using a military tribunal to arrest and convict civilians who sympathized with the confederacy during the civil war. This was a complete suspension of the constitution.
In the years since, courts have allowed for temporary and limited suspension of some constitutional rights in an emergency. For example, right to assembly can be suspended during a natural disaster like a hurricane. The recent case of Butler county et al v. Wolf et al from Pennsylvania gives a great interpretation of current jurisprudence.
The lockdowns are unconstitutional because they are neither temporary nor limited/narrow to achieve what that state desires with the minimal constitutional impact. For example, the state quarantining a sick traveler is acceptable because it is limited to just that person for a specific period of time.
Thanks for the reply. I've never really looked into this stuff before but this has intrigued me quite a bit, definitely going to do some more reading :)
Edit: With regards to the case cited from the original post/image - apparently that was just a "snippet" of a blog post that also had listed other cases and the American Jurisprudence to back up the claim that the lockdowns were unconsititutional.
Also the way the text was edited/circled/formatted in the image kinda confused things and made the "Section 98" part seem like they were referencing it from the Milligan case (seems the debunking articles out there used this to "debunk" - 'there's no section 98 in the Milligan case! REEE!'). The text I found on this from a blog actually references that Section 98 is from 16 American Jurisprudence 2d: https://www.ini-world-report.org/2020/05/03/governors-mayors-and-police-may-suffer-greatly-for-constitutional-violations/
In 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, a legal encyclopedia of United States law, suspension of the Constitution is prohibited, as follows:
“It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise. NO emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Section 71
“…Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of an emergency…” Section 98
Therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peaceably assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and/or attempts to enforce such suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, continental United states of America, is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we, the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE; even the Governor and President!
Sorry for the late response but as stated above by Rockscanwait, the case that was posted here merely held that you can't try someone in a military court when civilian courts are available and that person isn't subject to military jurisdiction. There's probably more rules you can pull out of it but that's what I see skimming it.
There are many cases recently that have been ruled on in the appellate courts and a few have made it to SCOTUS, and there continues to be a massive amount of litigation around this subject as the situation continues (so much that it seems to be changing so fast it's hard to keep track of).
From all the cases I've read so far that include cases from Jacobsen all the way up to today, as far as I can tell, it seems like the courts want to give deference to the government on their decisions on how to best deal with an emergency such as a pandemic. Courts dont want to step into the role of saying their judgement on disease supersedes that of doctors and health departments. Essentially as long as the government declares theres an emergency, and there's some kind of professional consensus that can be pointed to backing up that there is an emergency such as the CDC, WHO etc.. the Court sees it within the police power of the state to take actions to combat that emergency. This police power can include quarantining, mandatory vaccinations etc..
It is well settled that the state has this power. However, it's not constitutional when the measures the state employs are so broad that it cant be said that they are necessary to combat disease. In addition, it's unconstitutional when those measures are employed unequally against protected classes of people such as race. The question that determines whether a lockdown measure is constitutional is if it is narrowly tailored enough that will will actually help stop the disease and if it is being employed in an unequal manner against protected classes contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
That was a quick half ass legal explanation btw so someone else feel free to jump in if theres anything I misconstrued or missed. Also, I've never even heard of that encyclopedia until this post, just go by case law and precedent since that's what makes up the common law.
Thanks for the reply, I am definitely going to do more reading as I want to know more. It's severely disconcerting that by the "police power" aspect it seems citizen then lose all protections, sure maybe there are some precautions but for that to stand as precedent - especially if it comes to mandatory vaccinations, I find that terrifying frankly (not that a lot of the current mandates are any less scary per se, but to think that I could be forced to have something injected into me - holy shit).
Edit: Also with regards to the encyclopedia - based on what I read I see it's referred to as a secondary source - not necessarily the "go to" to prove a thing but it has been allowed and used as such in the past.
Yeah, I definetly find the current precedent unsettling. Now with the mandatory vaccine deal the court has so far upheld that fines are legal to impose on people who refuse to take vaccines. They've also held that things like children can be allowed to be barred from schools if they are not vaccinated. As far as I know there has been no instance of the Court upholding the forcible vaccination of someone (such as them being arrested for refusing, or being held down and being vaccinated by force).
It's debated that the federal government has a whole lot of power (to enact nationwide forced lockdowns, vaccines, mask mandates etc..). I suppose under the commerce clause they could maybe do some things but it's unprecedented and even my liberal professors say is unlikely to happen. Most of the measures are taken on a state, and county level because of principles of federalism which is why you see a million different responses around the country to the same problem. A lot of the court battles so far have been in the state courts between state legislatures and state executives on whether or not a particular county or governor has the power to enact these emergencies and measures. There hasn't been a lot of litigation in this field up until this point because frankly it's never really been that big of an issue. Hopefully one thing that comes out of this is some cases that make their way to SCOTUS that reaffirm constitutional rights even during declared emergencies and curtail over reaching government power.
What concerns me is the indefinite nature of these declared emergencies and the power being used by the state under their guise.
Looks like second circled part may be from 16 American Jurisprudence second edition, section 98. Trying to search more now for it.
Edit: looks like that's a constitutional law encyclopedia, seeing listings on eBay and amazon for various volumes but not definitive source of the text to confirm that is where it is from.
There were not 50 states until like 1950. Unless the 1866 SCOTUS was packed with time travellers, i’d say this one is about as real as Biden getting 80,000,000 votes
Now, if you go down the road two years, you'll find the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In the case of lockdowns, it's an infringement of our liberty.
So yes, it is unconstitutional but Parler bois need to do better research. I wouldn't be surprised if that SCOTUS ruling inspired it.
Where in constitution is "right to earn a living"? I don't think the preamble has legal force.
It should be an obvious right, but it's not spelled out in constitution. If there is such precedent to interpret the constitution defining and defending a right to earn a living, that would likely render most of the business closures as illegal.
Check my link above. It's a real case with a real finding. however the summary text being provided references 50 sovereign territories, which makes it look bogus.
it is however a real and actual case. I have no idea if it's relevant in the current circumstances though.
I don't think the 50 states text is from the ruling (obviously) but some opinion written when there was. It would be nice to know the source of that text.
Regardless of the source I especially like the part of the interpretation about immediately forfeiting the office and authority. Bye bye Cuomo, Whitmer, Wolf, and Co.
We wouldn't have had 8 years of Obama either. That I can tell you.
Don't know where that text is from, but I dont see that in the opinion of the court: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/milligan.html
Also, "50 independent, sovereign, continental ..." it was 1866. There weren't 50 anything then. Alaska wasn't even purchased until 1867, nevermind Hawaii and that the Dakotas were a single territory at the time.
The 2nd Red circled part is a current interpretation of the 1866 ruling.
I was confused about the 50 states part since we didnt have 50 until after ww2
Hijacking top comment with what I've found. Seems the second part circled in red may be referring to a constitutional law encyclopedia. Seeing listings on eBay and Amazon for various volumes but not definitive source of the text to confirm that is where it is from. However it is referenced/cited in quite a few sites sometimes as 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 98 or some variation. Looks like this was published in 1962 and has 140 volumes in the second edition (this particular text from volume 16, section 98).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jurisprudence
Edit: Ok, the text above may just be a mash/reinterpretation of the sec 98 I mentioned above. Found this blog type post that has it: https://www.ini-world-report.org/2020/05/03/governors-mayors-and-police-may-suffer-greatly-for-constitutional-violations/
This PDF from a 1998 North Dakota court case references it (page 19 of the PDF): https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/Dockets/19980161/7
Overall, interesting bit of reading I've done tonight LOL. Section 97 of that same volume seems like it would be helpful if having to actually address such a case in court though obviously I'm not a lawyer, or versed in any of those things whatsoever.
So this is bad law at this point. The lockdowns are being justified as constitutional right now under current precedent. The main case is jacobsen v. Massachusetts https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/.
Essentially the argument is that the power to quarantine/isolate and enact other public health laws falls under the police power of the state. Now this power isn’t absolute, it can’t be used in a racially invidious way or in a way that is so broad that it can’t be said to be a legitimate effective effort to reach the goals the state asserts.
I edit: I’m in public health law right now so I’ve had to endure dealing with this shit all semester.
Aka "laws are for proles"
So I did some digging on the OP and found some interesting text. Out of curiosity, since you cite there is some case as precedent for them being constitutional, does that make the legal encyclopedias flat out wrong? Specifically it seems American Jurisprudence volume 16, sections 71 & 98 could sway that (especially adding in what I saw from section 97). Granted, I'm going by what I can find online for free since it seems I'd need a LexisNexis account to actually view it.
Section 71:
Section 98:
Section 97:
EDIT: I skimmed the case you linked, seems that is regarding a smallpox vaccine and being exempt. Not sure how that would directly relate to COVID-19 and lockdowns. Ugh, as I'm reading more I see the bit wrt police power and such bullshit. Has any case like this actually gone to court recently?
The way the law encyclopedia is being interpreted is too broad, and it predates modern jurisprudence.
The case cited, ex parte Milligan, was about the federal government using a military tribunal to arrest and convict civilians who sympathized with the confederacy during the civil war. This was a complete suspension of the constitution.
In the years since, courts have allowed for temporary and limited suspension of some constitutional rights in an emergency. For example, right to assembly can be suspended during a natural disaster like a hurricane. The recent case of Butler county et al v. Wolf et al from Pennsylvania gives a great interpretation of current jurisprudence.
The lockdowns are unconstitutional because they are neither temporary nor limited/narrow to achieve what that state desires with the minimal constitutional impact. For example, the state quarantining a sick traveler is acceptable because it is limited to just that person for a specific period of time.
Thanks for the reply. I've never really looked into this stuff before but this has intrigued me quite a bit, definitely going to do some more reading :)
Edit: With regards to the case cited from the original post/image - apparently that was just a "snippet" of a blog post that also had listed other cases and the American Jurisprudence to back up the claim that the lockdowns were unconsititutional.
Also the way the text was edited/circled/formatted in the image kinda confused things and made the "Section 98" part seem like they were referencing it from the Milligan case (seems the debunking articles out there used this to "debunk" - 'there's no section 98 in the Milligan case! REEE!'). The text I found on this from a blog actually references that Section 98 is from 16 American Jurisprudence 2d: https://www.ini-world-report.org/2020/05/03/governors-mayors-and-police-may-suffer-greatly-for-constitutional-violations/
Sorry for the late response but as stated above by Rockscanwait, the case that was posted here merely held that you can't try someone in a military court when civilian courts are available and that person isn't subject to military jurisdiction. There's probably more rules you can pull out of it but that's what I see skimming it.
There are many cases recently that have been ruled on in the appellate courts and a few have made it to SCOTUS, and there continues to be a massive amount of litigation around this subject as the situation continues (so much that it seems to be changing so fast it's hard to keep track of).
From all the cases I've read so far that include cases from Jacobsen all the way up to today, as far as I can tell, it seems like the courts want to give deference to the government on their decisions on how to best deal with an emergency such as a pandemic. Courts dont want to step into the role of saying their judgement on disease supersedes that of doctors and health departments. Essentially as long as the government declares theres an emergency, and there's some kind of professional consensus that can be pointed to backing up that there is an emergency such as the CDC, WHO etc.. the Court sees it within the police power of the state to take actions to combat that emergency. This police power can include quarantining, mandatory vaccinations etc..
It is well settled that the state has this power. However, it's not constitutional when the measures the state employs are so broad that it cant be said that they are necessary to combat disease. In addition, it's unconstitutional when those measures are employed unequally against protected classes of people such as race. The question that determines whether a lockdown measure is constitutional is if it is narrowly tailored enough that will will actually help stop the disease and if it is being employed in an unequal manner against protected classes contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
That was a quick half ass legal explanation btw so someone else feel free to jump in if theres anything I misconstrued or missed. Also, I've never even heard of that encyclopedia until this post, just go by case law and precedent since that's what makes up the common law.
Thanks for the reply, I am definitely going to do more reading as I want to know more. It's severely disconcerting that by the "police power" aspect it seems citizen then lose all protections, sure maybe there are some precautions but for that to stand as precedent - especially if it comes to mandatory vaccinations, I find that terrifying frankly (not that a lot of the current mandates are any less scary per se, but to think that I could be forced to have something injected into me - holy shit).
Edit: Also with regards to the encyclopedia - based on what I read I see it's referred to as a secondary source - not necessarily the "go to" to prove a thing but it has been allowed and used as such in the past.
Yeah, I definetly find the current precedent unsettling. Now with the mandatory vaccine deal the court has so far upheld that fines are legal to impose on people who refuse to take vaccines. They've also held that things like children can be allowed to be barred from schools if they are not vaccinated. As far as I know there has been no instance of the Court upholding the forcible vaccination of someone (such as them being arrested for refusing, or being held down and being vaccinated by force).
It's debated that the federal government has a whole lot of power (to enact nationwide forced lockdowns, vaccines, mask mandates etc..). I suppose under the commerce clause they could maybe do some things but it's unprecedented and even my liberal professors say is unlikely to happen. Most of the measures are taken on a state, and county level because of principles of federalism which is why you see a million different responses around the country to the same problem. A lot of the court battles so far have been in the state courts between state legislatures and state executives on whether or not a particular county or governor has the power to enact these emergencies and measures. There hasn't been a lot of litigation in this field up until this point because frankly it's never really been that big of an issue. Hopefully one thing that comes out of this is some cases that make their way to SCOTUS that reaffirm constitutional rights even during declared emergencies and curtail over reaching government power.
What concerns me is the indefinite nature of these declared emergencies and the power being used by the state under their guise.
This cannot be true, there were no 50 states until 1950.
think lockdowns are unconstitutional...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
Looks like second circled part may be from 16 American Jurisprudence second edition, section 98. Trying to search more now for it.
Edit: looks like that's a constitutional law encyclopedia, seeing listings on eBay and amazon for various volumes but not definitive source of the text to confirm that is where it is from.
BOGUS GTFO
There weren't 50 states in 1866. I'm calling bullshit
There were not 50 states until like 1950. Unless the 1866 SCOTUS was packed with time travellers, i’d say this one is about as real as Biden getting 80,000,000 votes
All the "Fact Checkers" are stating it is false...digging deeper
I think they're close but no cigar.
Now, if you go down the road two years, you'll find the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
In the case of lockdowns, it's an infringement of our liberty.
So yes, it is unconstitutional but Parler bois need to do better research. I wouldn't be surprised if that SCOTUS ruling inspired it.
I read the opinion and don't see the second part in it. Ruling: Fake news
Where in constitution is "right to earn a living"? I don't think the preamble has legal force.
It should be an obvious right, but it's not spelled out in constitution. If there is such precedent to interpret the constitution defining and defending a right to earn a living, that would likely render most of the business closures as illegal.
This applies only to the federal government.
Forfeit their office... I like the sound of that.
Can a legal pede confirm?
Check my link above. It's a real case with a real finding. however the summary text being provided references 50 sovereign territories, which makes it look bogus.
it is however a real and actual case. I have no idea if it's relevant in the current circumstances though.
I don't think the 50 states text is from the ruling (obviously) but some opinion written when there was. It would be nice to know the source of that text.
gimme dat effin sauce. What's the court case
Regardless of the source I especially like the part of the interpretation about immediately forfeiting the office and authority. Bye bye Cuomo, Whitmer, Wolf, and Co.
We wouldn't have had 8 years of Obama either. That I can tell you.
Interesting, considering there were only 26 states in 1866.
Found this: http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/ex-parte-milligan-1866/ Doesn't look to me like this post is accurately representing the outcome, but I'm not a lawyer.
Were there REALLY 50 states in 1866?
Come on, maaaaaaan!
looks fake
rescinded my upvote.
NOT 50 STATES IN 1866
Fake.. There wasn't 50 states in 1866