web analytics

One Constitutional Judge

By Patrick Van Roy On September 15th, 2020

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A federal judge has struck down many of Pennsylvania’s coronavirus restrictions as unconstitutional, including the closure of non-life-sustaining businesses. What does that mean as we go into fall, amid a potential resurgence of COVID-19?

The federal judge ruled forcing businesses to shut down entirely and Gov. Tom Wolf’s stay-at-home order are both unconstitutional. Some business owners say they’ve been waiting to hear a ruling like this for months.  In a 60-plus page opinion, the judge wrote: “There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.

30 Responses to “One Constitutional Judge”

  1. So basically the US will remain an international covid pariah

  2. You are celebrating activist judicial obstruction that can only lead to more sickness, more death, more unemployment, more closed businesses, and continued bans on Americans traveling abroad.

    I wonder if this could lead to PA being thrown out of the Northeast virus compact, an alliance that has been really effective

    PA has done a great job. Until now.

  3. Patrick going with his personal interpretation of constitutional – ie agrees with him.

  4. No I’m celebrating someone official is pointing out THE FACTS.

    Non of these Covid restrictions are Constitutional Phantom I’ve told you that from the beginning. The fact that the Rule of Law means nothing to you is not my problem.

    I have to laugh at you though, a judge can say a person can’t be deported even though they’re here illegally and the Law says they should be deported you don’t bat an eye.

    A Judge says the Constitution Prevents Governors from implementing and creating unconstitutional laws and you call them an activist Judge…….

    Bubble think…….

  5. it’s not my personal interpretation Seamus our rights do not come from the Government, the come to us from natures creator.

    These rights exist whether there is a pandemic or not, and yes you can declare an emergency, but then you have to FOLLOW THE LAW in regard to the rule of Law that govern emergency declarations.

    Not one of our Governors have done that. They are all breaking the Law and Violating the Constitution.

  6. “These rights exist whether there is a pandemic or not, and yes you can declare an emergency, but then you have to FOLLOW THE LAW in regard to the rule of Law that govern emergency declarations.”

    If rights exists whether there is a pandemic or not then simply declaring an emergency wouldn’t overcome them. Where in the constitution does it say that natural rights are suspended in periods of emergency?

    “it’s not my personal interpretation”

    It is your personal interpretation, and a selective one at that. You have no problem with the government trampling people’s rights when you agree with it. An unalienable right to life unless you support killing them.

  7. no and your being silly.

    The Constitution is a LIMIT on GOVERNMENT POWER it’s not a document to control the people, it’s a document that LIMITS the power of government, you show me where it says it doesn’t count during periods of emergency.

  8. It is your personal interpretation, and a selective one at that. You have no problem with the government trampling people’s rights when you agree with it. An unalienable right to life unless you support killing them.

    Please provide one example…… I’ll wait.

  9. “The Constitution is a LIMIT on GOVERNMENT POWER it’s not a document to control the people, it’s a document that LIMITS the power of government, you show me where it says it doesn’t count during periods of emergency.”

    You are the one saying it doesn’t count in periods of emergency. I think there are natural limits on rights all the time, emergencies or otherwise.

    You said that “yes you can declare an emergency, but then you have to FOLLOW THE LAW in regard to the rule of Law that govern emergency declarations”. So where does it give the government the ability to do that?

  10. “Please provide one example…… I’ll wait.”

    Your support for the death penalty.

  11. Which is not unconstitutional. Lynching is but execution is not.

    Just because you think it’s barbaric doesn’t change the facts. The facts are if you break the Law you can lose your rights, even your right to live.

    Plus they are Laws, passed by the peoples representatives, written into Law and made into Law through the proper procedures as specified in the Constitution.

    NONE of these Lockdown DICTATES have.

    Seamus there are rules on how things have to proceed, those rules have not been followed.

  12. “Which is not unconstitutional. Lynching is but execution is not.”

    You just said that “rights do not come from the Government, the come to us from natures creator”, that those rights include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Thus you have a right to life that comes from God, not from government. And thus the death penalty takes away your unalienable (you really, really need to learn what that word means) right to life.

    “The facts are if you break the Law you can lose your rights, even your right to live.”

    Which means that government can take away your rights, which means they come from government, not God.

  13. You have no problem with the government trampling people’s rights when you agree with it.

    Please provide one example…… I’ll wait.

    The First Ammendment Right to Peaceful Assembly. You had no problem with peaceful protestors being tear-gassed off the streets, just so Trump could have his photo op. You even happily repeated the lie that AG Barr was attacked, as justification of it.

  14. …our rights do not come from the Government, the come to us from natures creator.

    Can you show one shred of evidence to back this up? A single piece of paper, signed by God, to back up this ridiculous claim? No, you can’t. You can only show bits of paper signed by MEN, because these rights were written by men, not any god. Or are you saying that the men who wrote these rights down were in direct communication with god? If that’s what you’re saying, then surely you have some proof of that?

    Thought not.

  15. You just said that “rights do not come from the Government, the come to us from natures creator”, that those rights include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Thus you have a right to life that comes from God, not from government. And thus the death penalty takes away your unalienable (you really, really need to learn what that word means) right to life.

    Idiocy……

    The Government doesn’t take away anyone’s rights when the incarcerate them, or execute them. The Person being incarcerated, or executed, took away their own rights by committing and being found Guilty in a Court of Law.

    Never have I supported peaceful protestors being teargassed. I have said consistantly on here for 20yrs that everyone has the right to say whatever they believe and I will fight to the death for anyone to be able to do so peacefully. Throwing rocks, smashing windows, lighting fires, and looting ARE NOT 1st Amendment Rights.

    They are CRIMINAL ACTS and these people should be fire hosed off the streets AFTER they’ve been bathed in tear gas.

  16. “The Government doesn’t take away anyone’s rights when the incarcerate them, or execute them. The Person being incarcerated, or executed, took away their own rights by committing and being found Guilty in a Court of Law.”

    No they didn’t. Additionally unalienable rights can’t be removed, even by the person. Only God can remove an unalienable right to life. Even the individual, whether through their choices or actions, cannot remove it. That is what that means.

    You support the government removing rights when you want to. It is yet another example of your stunning hypocrisy.

  17. Can you show one shred of evidence to back this up? A single piece of paper, signed by God, to back up this ridiculous claim? No, you can’t. You can only show bits of paper signed by MEN, because these rights were written by men, not any god. Or are you saying that the men who wrote these rights down were in direct communication with god? If that’s what you’re saying, then surely you have some proof of that?

    Thought not.

    That is the idiocy thinking of a foreigner who has no grasp on the founding of America.

  18. Sorry Seamus, you’re very smart, the second best researcher on the site, but you totally lack understanding of the basic principals of the United States.

  19. That is the idiocy thinking of a foreigner who has no grasp on the founding of America

    No, that is someone asking you to provide solid evidence that god wrote your rights. If he wrote them, it should be easy to prove so.

    Never have I supported peaceful protestors being teargassed.

    You’re right. You said they should have been shot. But you did attempt to justify their being teargassed.

  20. “Sorry Seamus, you’re very smart, the second best researcher on the site, but you totally lack understanding of the basic principals of the United States.”

    I understand that you have basic principles. And when you don’t like them you have others.

  21. …the second best researcher on the site…

    Who is the best? You??

    Copying and pasting from Tucker Carlson’s Twitter feed is NOT research!

  22. Dr Anne McCloskey of Derry/Londonderry speaks in public about the hoax and the real cost to people:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9IufUtXumg&feature=emb_logo

    Now, from the case filed against the Ohio governor and the state of Ohio for restricting freedom without legitimate justification…….

    “The PCR tests are generally viewed as the means of determining if a patient has COVID-19. The problem is that the inventor of the PCR test, who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention, specifically stated that the test was not well-suited to and never designed to diagnose disease. Much has been made about this in the press and elsewhere but the reason there are issues with PCR testing in relation to COVID is that PCR testing cannot detect how much of a virus exists in a person. Exposure of the existence of incomplete traces of a virus do not mean a person is infected with a disease [,] which is part of the reason the PCR tests have an elevated rate of false positives.”

  23. Even though most medics are prepared to go along with the hoax (if somebody’s job and pension etc depend on believing the hoax, it’s difficult to persuade him/her not to believe the hoax), some are now speaking out……

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/draconian-restrictions-around-covid-19-condemned-by-hse-doctor-1.4352701

    Covid-19 is “much less severe” than the average annual flu and current “draconian” restrictions are no longer justified, according to a senior Health Service Executive doctor.

    People at low risk from the virus should be exposed to it so they can develop herd immunity and reduce the risk to vulnerable groups, according to Dr Martin Feeley, clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group.

    “That is what is happening and yet the policy seems to be to prevent it,” he says. “This should have been allowed to happen during the summer months before the annual flu season, to reduce the workload on the health service during winter months.”

  24. Who is the best? You??

    Copying and pasting from Tucker Carlson’s Twitter feed is NOT research!

    Screw you Seimi……. I am the most knowledgeable person and the best researcher not just on this site, but that you will ever converse with in your life.

    I am the smartest in the room, and always will be 🙂

  25. “There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.”

    Hallelujah!

    I hope the judge goes far. I didn’t know any of them even remembered that the point of the judiciary was to uphold the law.

  26. I am the smartest in the room, and always will be 🙂

    That padded cell/room of yours only has room for one then? 🙂

  27. I didn’t know any of them even remembered that the point of the judiciary was to uphold the law.

    Didn’t you call them ‘activists’ when they did precisely that by declaring the triggering of Art 50 constitutionally must be voted on in Parliament?

  28. Ahhh the pangs of jealousy…..

  29. I see turnip McDumbass has already lost his latest trade war with Canada.he surrendered with out a shot fired

    What a donkey

  30. Ahhh the pangs of jealousy…..

    Huh?

    Any response to this?

    Seimi, on September 15th, 2020 at 4:54 PM Said:
    You have no problem with the government trampling people’s rights when you agree with it.

    Please provide one example…… I’ll wait.

    The First Ammendment Right to Peaceful Assembly. You had no problem with peaceful protestors being tear-gassed off the streets, just so Trump could have his photo op. You even happily repeated the lie that AG Barr was attacked, as justification of it.

    Or this?

    Seimi, on September 15th, 2020 at 5:09 PM Said:
    That is the idiocy thinking of a foreigner who has no grasp on the founding of America

    No, that is someone asking you to provide solid evidence that god wrote your rights. If he wrote them, it should be easy to prove so.

    Never have I supported peaceful protestors being teargassed.

    You’re right. You said they should have been shot. But you did attempt to justify their being teargassed.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.