The legality of government directives and COVID - FB Conversation

Ozie

1 hr · 

Those, who protest state stay at home laws, masks and social distancing. Probably would be the same people who would have refused to turn off their lights in 1943 London. during Germany's night time bombing raids. "This is my house". You can't tell me when I can or can not have my lights on. It's my constitutional right to leave them on. If I want to.

Like

Comment

Share

Comments

• 
  
• Me: There are no stay at home laws. They are directives, unevenly applied and largely ineffective.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1h
  
  

  • 
    

    Ozie: Tomato/Tomato. The implied reasoning is the same is the same. For your health and those around you.

    1

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 1h
  • 
    

    Me: A directive is not a law. A directive bypasses the law and imposes the will of a single individual against the entirety of the population. That is tyranny.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 1h
  • 
    

    Ozie: He was elected. Just like our president. Who also has a propensity of making decisions (felt tipped pen in hand) which effect all of us. If we all don't agree with his decisions. We all still have to except them.

    3

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 54m
  • 
    

    Me: No we don't. Whenever Trump or any official, elected or not, makes decisions carrying the force of law. that is tyranny by definition. It doesn't matter if it's a noble cause or if people are being made safe or whatever the excuse is.
    
    An elected official is bound to carry out the laws of the land, not circumvent them.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 48m
  • 
    

    Ozie: So you're saying you would leave your lights on. Because government can't tell you not to?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 45m
  • 
    

    Me: The government can pass a law. Democracy. An individual cannot pass a law.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 44m
  • 
    

    Rick: Rich so my question when I hear this about the stay at home directive is, do you think staying at home is stupid or are you just arguing that the “directive” is no legal? Just curious.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 43m
  • 
    

    Me: Rick, Exactly. Regardless of my opinion about the nature of the directive, it is the legality I question. In fact, I would say that a temporary directive can be implemented if it is consistent with existing law, but the legislature must vote on it at the first opportunity.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 41m
    •  · 
  • Ozie: I'm saying, those who resent the stay at home and are congregating (enmasse) without protection as a means of protest are foolish So you're saying, because it's a directive, your sense of morality or conscience says you will not obey until it is voted into law?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 29m
  • 
    

    
    Me: I believe in the autonomy of the individual to choose their own course and select their own risks in life, consistent with law and moral choices as they see fit. Unlawful directives do not need to be obeyed, however.
  • 
    If my actions cause direct harm to another, I can be held legally liable. Government does not get to intervene into my choices apart from its authority as granted by law.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 18m
  • 
    

    Ozie: Right. Live my own beliefs or die and all those around me to which I come in contact.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 15m
  • 
    

    Me: I did not say that.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 14m
  • 
    

    Ozie: If I misunderstood. I'm sorry. Please explain.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 12m
  • 
    

    Me: I think I've been pretty clear. Government has certain powers. They cannot violate them. Period. Even for our own good. We do not live in a police state, and any action that violates the law is unlawful. That of course is a tautology, but it needs saying.
    
    I'm talking about principles of law, not COVID or people dying. That is an emotional appeal, and beneath you.
    
    If you are in favor of wanton use of power, then by all means, do whatever they say whenever they say it, regardless of whether or not it is sensible, consistent, or legal. That is an extremely bad precedent, which opens the door for all kinds of abuse in the name of the "greater good."