It sounds to me like Gov. Abbott will open up the state for business, and in turn, La Comandte will require face coverings as a sort of "compromise".

aggiemike02 said:

---

you got strep from your kids, and you know it.

---

My kids who haven't been anywhere in over 2 weeks and never had it?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ya, and you would never be able to fly anywhere, have to order everything online and never go into any private business except for a small subset, couldn't leave the country, ect. All to prove your stupid little point.

But thankfully that won't happen. At least not with this virus.

---

No. Some private businesses won't require it and you'll see a percentage of the population move to those businesses. That's the great thing about freedom and the free market.

You keep saying it won't happen, but I bet you thought you'd never see the day where the government forces the economy to shut down for over a month, yet here we are.

aTm2004 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ya, and you would never be able to fly anywhere, have to order everything online and never go into any private business except for a small subset, couldn't leave the country, ect. All to prove your stupid little point.

But thankfully that won't happen. At least not with this virus.

---

No. Some private businesses won't require it and you'll see a percentage of the population move to those businesses. That's the great thing about freedom and the free market.

You keep saying it won't happen, but I bet you thought you'd never see the day where the government forces the economy to shut down for over a month, yet here we are.

---

This is not something you can stick to your principles 100% on unless you are willing to kill everyone. Imagine a virus or other highly communicable illness comes around that kills off over 80% of all that are infected. Not enough? 90%. Not enough? 100%. You would have to hold true to your standard that government, of any level, can never temporarily shut down any sort of private commerce to save lives, no matter how many, to the point of 100% death of the entire population. Otherwise you will have conceded that at some arbitrary point, it is a legitimate function of government.

Quote:

---

"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."

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

"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."

---

---

Forgot to bold a part...

IrishTxAggie said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

"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."

---

---

Forgot to bold a part...

---

Right, and the way the "people" control the powers wielded and used by their state and local governments that are not expressly prohibited by the USC is through local and state elections.... and if they don't like the results. move to a different city or state.

HotardAg07 said:

---

Don't we already require kids to have certain vaccines to be enrolled in schools?

---

Yes, but there are exemptions that basically allow anyone to circumvent those requirements.

Minimum Vaccination Requirements

Although I have fairly strong opinions on this as well, I'll leave them be at the risk of opening a whole other can of worms on this thread.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ya, and you would never be able to fly anywhere, have to order everything online and never go into any private business except for a small subset, couldn't leave the country, ect. All to prove your stupid little point.

But thankfully that won't happen. At least not with this virus.

---

No. Some private businesses won't require it and you'll see a percentage of the population move to those businesses. That's the great thing about freedom and the free market.

You keep saying it won't happen, but I bet you thought you'd never see the day where the government forces the economy to shut down for over a month, yet here we are.

---

This is not something you can stick to your principles 100% on unless you are willing to kill everyone. Imagine a virus or other highly communicable illness comes around that kills off over 80% of all that are infected. Not enough? 90%. Not enough? 100%. You would have to hold true to your standard that government, of any level, can never temporarily shut down any sort of private commerce to save lives, no matter how many, to the point of 100% death of the entire population. Otherwise you will have conceded that at some arbitrary point, it is a legitimate function of government.

---

I wouldn't want the government mandating me to do anything to protect myself. I want them to make their suggestions and allow me the freedom to make the choice on what feel is best for me and my family. So yes, I would hold true to my standard of government. It would be no different at 80-100% or the <1% this is turning out to be.

The USSC is not going to arbitrate how the citizens of Texas give emergency powers to the governor or county judge or mayor. From the ruling:

Quote:

---

...it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the board of health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body; and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a board of health composed of persons residing in the locality affected, and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual, nor an unreasonable or arbitrary, requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. It is to be observed that when the regulation in question was adopted smallpox, according to the recitals in the regulation adopted by the board of health, was prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and the disease was increasing. If such was the situation,--and nothing is asserted or appears in the record to the contrary,--if we are to attach, any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, in common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the board of health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety. Smallpox being prevalent and increasing at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the state, to protect the people at large was arbitrary, and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case, because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons.

...If the mode adopted by the commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient, or objectionable to some,--if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question,--the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort, and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will, and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand. An American citizen arriving at an American port on a vessel in which, during the voyage, there had been cases of yellow fever or Asiatic cholera, he, although apparently free from disease himself, may yet, in some circumstances, be held in quarantine against his will on board of such vessel or in a quarantine station, until it be ascertained by inspection, conducted with due diligence, that the danger of the spread of the disease among the community at large has disappeared. The liberty secured by the 14th Amendment, this court has said, consists, in part, in the right of a person 'to live and work where he will'; and yet he may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country, and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities, under the sanction of the state, for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger.

It is said, however, that the statute, as interpreted by the state court, although making an exception in favor of children certified by a registered physician to be unfit subjects for vaccination, makes no exception in case of adults in like condition. But this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.

---

I think the chance of these kinds of laws being overturned are 0.0% unless there is some egregious singling out of race, class, creed, etc.

For the time being, no arguments from me. I'll get read through and process the entire case and come back to it with a more thoughtful response.

aTm2004 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ya, and you would never be able to fly anywhere, have to order everything online and never go into any private business except for a small subset, couldn't leave the country, ect. All to prove your stupid little point.

But thankfully that won't happen. At least not with this virus.

---

No. Some private businesses won't require it and you'll see a percentage of the population move to those businesses. That's the great thing about freedom and the free market.

You keep saying it won't happen, but I bet you thought you'd never see the day where the government forces the economy to shut down for over a month, yet here we are.

---

This is not something you can stick to your principles 100% on unless you are willing to kill everyone. Imagine a virus or other highly communicable illness comes around that kills off over 80% of all that are infected. Not enough? 90%. Not enough? 100%. You would have to hold true to your standard that government, of any level, can never temporarily shut down any sort of private commerce to save lives, no matter how many, to the point of 100% death of the entire population. Otherwise you will have conceded that at some arbitrary point, it is a legitimate function of government.

---

I wouldn't want the government mandating me to do anything to protect myself. I want them to make their suggestions and allow me the freedom to make the choice on what feel is best for me and my family. So yes, I would hold true to my standard of government. It would be no different at 80-100% or the <1% this is turning out to be.

---

I agree with you if everything happens in a vacuum. If your actions affect you and only you, then fine, do whatever you want.

But when it starts to affect other people on a certain scale, then government intervention is required because God knows there are some people who just doesn't have common sense or straight up don't give a sht.

Seems to miss the point that it's not about enforcement, it's about individual households adopting the practice.

Wear a mask no one is stopping you just don't make others .