All of the "Constititional experts".

[rusty]

There seems to be a lot of U.S. Constitution scholars on this board. It's actually amazing that there are so many experts on the Constitution consolidated into such a small space, but I digress.

Most say that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution it is unconstitutional.

I've argued in the past that there's a huge difference between UNconstitutional and NONconstitutional. Of course, this falls on deaf ears.

For example, gays have no rights, transgender have no rights, women who want control of their own bodies have no rights.

Yet it seems that anti-mask wearers feel they have Constitutional rights not to wear a mask.

Can any of you "experts" tell me where, in the Constitution, you have the right not to wear a mask where required? Is it spelled out somewhere? Can you give me some facts?

[Sangersteve]

It's right next to where you found that it is constitutional to order someone to wear a mask.

Show me that first.

[planosteve]

Rusty, I am no constitutional authority or scholar. But, Andrew Napolitano is. So, I will follow his guidance. You can read it here.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/and ... pay-grade/
I believe that he is saying that it is unconstitutional to impose a restriction on freedom guaranteed by the bill of rights either temporarily or permanently.

[rusty]

It's right next to where you found that it is constitutional to order someone to wear a mask.

Show me that first.

Steve, that's exactly my point. There's nothing in the Consitution about masks at all. So how can it be someone's "right" to not have to wear one?

[John in Plano]

States are issuing laws/regulations/limitations pick your choice of word regarding the current medical issue in this country just like the Constitution allows.

Fed Government isn't ordering Texas residents to wear masks.

[Mark]

Laws are made by legislative bodies, not by presidents, governors, mayors, or judges.

There isn't any one man in America with the unilateral power to create law.

[John in Plano]

So Abbott violated state law.

[planosteve]

A state of local govt. can decree anything they want. It's legal until someone takes them to court and sues them and wins.

[Ric]

There seems to be a lot of U.S. Constitution scholars on this board. It's actually amazing that there are so many experts on the Constitution consolidated into such a small space, but I digress.

Most say that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution it is unconstitutional.

I've argued in the past that there's a huge difference between UNconstitutional and NONconstitutional. Of course, this falls on deaf ears.

For example, gays have no rights, transgender have no rights, women who want control of their own bodies have no rights.

Yet it seems that anti-mask wearers feel they have Constitutional rights not to wear a mask.

Can any of you "experts" tell me where, in the Constitution, you have the right not to wear a mask where required? Is it spelled out somewhere? Can you give me some facts?

Well, this isn't constitutional, but I will bet dollars to donuts that when the calendar turns to the dog days, there will be a lot of people who say today that they will mask up.. Who won't.

[planosteve]

I was hoping that Napolitano was going to come out with something more definitive on the Bill of Rights. I was kind of disappointed in his previous efforts. And now Vola! Here it is. This is an extract, you should read the whole thing.

The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the government and to limit it. Some of the limitations are written in the Constitution itself. Most of the limitations that pertain to personal freedoms are found in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments.
So, the rights to thought, speech, press, assembly, worship, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership, interstate commercial activities and fair treatment from government are plainly articulated or rationally inferred in the first eight amendments. The Ninth is a catchall, which declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights. The Tenth reflects that the states have reserved powers to themselves.

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices — free from government interference or government permission.

The current interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, interstate commercial activities and the exercise of religious beliefs. These infringements have all come from state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.

The third constitutional issue is: Can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance? Again, the answer is no because all government in America is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.

Today, we are governed by dangerous men and women. For they have taken away our ability to make personal choices, and they have used force to compel compliance. In doing that, they have not only violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, they also have committed the criminal acts of nullifying our rights. By using the powers of state governments to do this, they have made themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING! IT IS BRILLIANT! And pass it around. Let everybody know that they are being unconstitutionally treated!
BE MAD AS HELL AND DON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/and ... stitution/

[Red Oak]

There seems to be a lot of U.S. Constitution scholars on this board. It's actually amazing that there are so many experts on the Constitution consolidated into such a small space, but I digress.

Most say that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution it is unconstitutional.

I've argued in the past that there's a huge difference between UNconstitutional and NONconstitutional. Of course, this falls on deaf ears.

For example, gays have no rights, transgender have no rights, women who want control of their own bodies have no rights.

Yet it seems that anti-mask wearers feel they have Constitutional rights not to wear a mask.

Can any of you "experts" tell me where, in the Constitution, you have the right not to wear a mask where required? Is it spelled out somewhere? Can you give me some facts?

The Tenth Amendment states very clearly:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[planosteve]

Can any of you "experts" tell me where, in the Constitution, you have the right not to wear a mask where required? Is it spelled out somewhere? Can you give me some facts?

I don't think the constitution specifies the right "not to" do anything.

Napolitano addresses this issue in the article that I just posted.

The first is: Do governors have inherent power in an emergency to craft regulations that carry the force of law? The answer is no.

The second constitutional issue is: Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers.

The third constitutional issue is: Can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance? Again, the answer is no because all government in America is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.