There is NO USA LAW that exempts you from wearing a mask...
|
They've bounced around like a pinball the whole time. They were largely right in suggesting that masks, assuming limited supply, should be reserved for frontline health workers. And they're also right that misuse/poor fitting won't do any good.
But that was March, and we've learned a lot since then, or at least learned to listen to the people who already knew a lot. I haven't worn a mask more than 5 times in the past 6 months. I also haven't gone out more than 5 times. Point being, social distancing where possible obviously trumps mask-wearing, but in the absence of the former, it is important to do the latter properly. Again, not necessarily to prevent one from catching it, but because wearing a mask prevents a person from spreading it. Does that mean if you don't have it you shouldn't wear a mask? Of course not -- for a start, asymptomatic spreading is a thing; but more significantly, if everyone wears a mask, spread plummets, even if only .01% of them have the virus. We're back at the whole 'thinking of others' crux here... https://linktr.ee/wjameschan -- everything I've ever done worth talking about, and even that is debatable.
Huh. My mace dude is now an actual cultist of Chayula. That's kinda wild. |
|
" Laughable. Mankind is far past the point where one's freedom starts infringing on another's. If you want a world of freedom, you essentially want a "strong eat weak" world; primitivity at its best. On the other hand, if you want everyone to have similar freedom up to whatever imaginary point, you need to draw lines and enforce rules. There will never exist an Elysium where humans have complete freedom and are restricted by no rules. " Sure, if the aliens are so strong that they can completely ignore our existence, to the point where no movie heroes would ever be able save us. It's more likely that they'll use some form of divide and conquer to minimize their losses though. Humans are greedy and have strong survival insticts which makes dividing us very easy. |
|
" All true, generally speaking. But, if there are instruments existing that can be used... they can be used. For instance, curfews and the like exist and can be imposed. If other equally malleable powers exist, they can be applied as well. As you suggest, what powers a State government may have can differ between States. "Martial Law" is the temporary suspension of existing Law. That's the most drastic form of some sort of "government" oversight. That's a sort of "nuke it from orbit" option that may not be a necessary means of achieving a desired goal. |
|
|
^ again the bottom line is that each State Govenor doesnt actually have the power under law to shut down, or otherwise hurt business, in the name of public health.
They can issue guidelines and mandates, and try to apply public pressure through shaming and disappointment, but that's about it. In the early parts of COVID back in March and April many businesses wanted to do their part to help, but I think that goodwill has largely gone away as the realization of an extended fight and bankruptcy has set in. As I mentioned I live in IL just outside Chicago. Here is a brief article talking about the situations these business owners are facing, and their legal standing which appears to be quite strong. https://www.dailyherald.com/business/20201026/geneva-restaurant-can-serve-meals-indoors-while-fighting-governors-order "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln |
|
" That's... false. It's also unfairly misleading to characterize the purpose of such an act as being "otherwise hurt business." https://www.nga.org/governors/powers-and-authority/ It's going to really matter in regards to the individual States exactly what powers their governor has. But, as above, it's a matter of governing principle that if there is an "Emergency" the governor has the power to respond to it. An "Emergency" and whatever powers the Governor invokes does not have to be a case of extreme "Martial Law," btw. For instance, just because there's a curfew it doesn't mean a citizen does not retain certain Rights and enforcement doesn't include boots kicking in the doors of private homes. " Becoming inured to the implications of a truly dangerous illness is something we're experiencing in the US. Other concerns rise to the fore and we've largely forgotten people fighting tooth-and-claw in the aisles over the last rolls of toilet paper. "Too little, too late" - We're kind of reaping the whirlwind, here. We could have quickly pulled the band-aid off and suffered brief and intense pain or slowly peeled it back, feeling the yank of every hair being pulled out by its roots. That people are staring to see the secondary effects of a pandemic as more dangerous than the actual pandemic itself is pretty telling - "Covid Fatigue." We see the death toll numbers rise every day. What's another hundred in the face of thousands? What are those deaths compared to the fact that my job is gone or all my favorite restaurants are now out of business? We elect and hire people to pay very close attention to collective risks and dangers of all sorts. We've already all agreed we're basically a collective of morons, incapable of coming together to figure out how to make it all "work." So, we have delegated that task to others and lend them some of our individual agency and power so they can do that job. Yet, when these people come up with solutions that are not something we "like," no matter how necessary, we tend to get very angry about it all. " It's not an uncommon situation. Again, though, individual States may have their own rules/laws/powers. Certainly, the heavy-hand of government isn't liked by most Americans (and many citizens in other countries) even if they're the staunchest supporter of collective rule. It's as if, for some strange reason, people don't get upset about something until they see it in their own back yards. :) "The Government should act, just stay off my lawn!" Not every solution is going to be equally applicable. Not all restaurants are the same, after all. A "drive-thru only" fast-food joint probably shouldn't be required to obey certain "occupancy" laws unless they're directly applicable. They probably shouldn't shove fifty employees into a twenty square-foot room, but could easily keep operating under laws designed for indoor seating. The problem of evaluating each and every establishment, though, represents an unnecessary, likely impossible, problem. The ability, however, for an establishment to legally protest against such restrictions has not been denied - They could file in protest and be heard by the Courts. In the article you linked above, the restaurant may remain open while seeking legal recourse as compliance would basically mean the restaurant wouldn't be around by the time the case made it through the Courts. :) But, in the end, unless the Governor's order is ruled invalid, the restaurant will likely have to comply with it. (The counter-argument comparing it to "big-box" food stores is... nonsensical, IMO.) Note: Restaurants are one of the most unstable business there is, right behind selling snowballs in Alaska. Taken as a whole class, opening a restaurant is usually little different from gambling. Though, most people who open independent restaurants are very large on enthusiasm and very small on common sense. It's very easy to spot a brand new restaurant opening up that will shut its doors in three years. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, I would hope, that on-site serving restaurants are particularly vulnerable to not having on-site customers. |
|
" I think we are engaging in semantics, and not in disagreement, so I'm not sure that False / True can apply in the discussion we are having regrading business operations. There is significant grey area, and why there are so many lawsuits pending. I suppose the crux of the actual question here, is an indefinite "emergency" really an "emergency"? Does that overstep the Govender's powers which were meant to centralize a quick response, not entertain ongoing policy without input from citizens or the state legislators? These emergency powers, in my opinion, and a number of legal experts, do not extend permanently, or give the Governor the power to select which businesses stays open, and which don't, or to what degree. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln Last edited by DarthSki44#6905 on Oct 27, 2020, 1:58:58 PM
|
|
|
Intresting content on this thread hahah! But i usually wear a mask just to be safe!
|
|
" I agree with that inasmuch as the laws and powers can differ between States. " We don't have appropriate regulations and Laws in place that can be directly applied to "Plagues." :) So, we've got a situation that isn't a "forest fire" or a flood. It's not a temporary power outage or some other event that will likely have a pretty well-defined "end state." "When is the Emergency going to be over?" "When the neighborhood has stopped being on fire." "Oh, OK, cool..." Despite the whole 1917 Flu thing, we didn't adopt measures in Law to incorporate our experiences there. At least not in the case of these sorts of "Powers." I suppose we were just so relieved it "disappeared" (Everyone who had it stopped living...) that we desperately wanted to ignore the fact it ever happened. Meanwhile, those countries that were truly ravaged, like much of the East/Orient, actually changed their behavior as a result. Go figure, huh? "Mask Wearing" is socially acceptable in such countries because it's been that way since their own experience with the Influenza Pandemic. Didn't quite "stick" with us, though... Once we can establish firm, definite, measurable "End Conditions" for any kind of Emergency Power or any other temporary measure, as well as a way to track progress, then things will be much easier. (The whole "testing" thing and ways to get accurate estimates of public threat) At that point, all that's left to argue about is how many people should be allowed to die so that the ice-cream machine at McDonalds will be fixed so I can get a milkshake. |
|
|
Where I live it is highly suggested but not mandatory. Most people do in stores, most people don't when walking or in the park.
Most people don't realize that in US all of this is municipal. A city can make an ordinance, or a county in some cases, they can make it (if they wanted to) so they can fine you $100,000 for not wearing a mask. It is not federal. Why is this hard to understand? Censored.
|
|
" Oh we do. We don't agree it is a good thing. :) And the US President could enact a Nationwide Mask Mandate under National Emergency Laws but it would be difficult to Enforce. |
|
