Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
I just do not trust anything from Facebook. My grown kids and their spouses have Facebook and I get to hear about all the junk there plus the wife has it to see pictures of the grandkids as they get posted also. I also question snopes sometimes as I did catch them totally incorrect about one item I searched some years ago. That was only one of many times I used snopes. The wife and I did get to go racing out west in late February before the lockdown and sure glad we did do that since it may be a long time until we get to go again. Just staying home now due to our age being high risk. Jeff stay safe and hope we all get to race again sometime soon. Rick Cates Canyon, TX |
Re: What's your thoughts
Here is what it comes down to:
I believe there will be no racing in 2020 and that we should all be staying home and avoiding crowds until this is over. I could be right. I could be wrong. Others believe COVID-19 is not real, or that it has been hyped beyond reality. They think we should get back to normal as quickly as possible. They could be right. They could be wrong. The difference is that if I am wrong, I have needlessly missed out on going to drag races and other events. If they are wrong, they could infect themselves, their families, and friends. They or their family members could die. If you are going to be wrong, which way would you rather be wrong? |
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
|
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
If you are out of work and are not getting unemployment, grocery stores, and other essential businesses can't hire enough people. In addition, more than 11 million people in this country were living under the poverty line before COVID-19. If you are facing poverty, there are jobs available. It's your choice. |
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
|
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
|
Re: What's your thoughts
These “orders” — stay at home, close your business, don’t run in the park, don’t go to Mass, practice social distancing — are not laws that can carry a criminal penalty for violation. They are guidelines, without the force of law. A governor or mayor can no more craft law and assign a punishment for its noncompliance than the courts could command the military or police.
Even if legislative bodies did order churches and businesses closed, and governors and mayors were just enforcing those laws, the laws would be profoundly unconstitutional. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment firmly establishes freedom of religion as a fundamental liberty, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment firmly establishes your right to purchase a lawful product in interstate commerce from a willing seller as fundamental. Fundamental liberties are in the highest category of liberty, akin to freedom of conscience and speech and press and privacy and travel. Let’s say you are at a big-box store looking for groceries and other items. The government cannot constitutionally limit your choices to food and paper towels if you prefer to buy grass seed and a garden hose. These are intimate personal decisions. You need not explain or justify them to the government and you don’t need a government permission slip to exercise your free will and make those choices. Until now. Now, we have become a nation of sheep. We have elected officials with constitutionally assigned duties — and constitutionally imposed limitations — who have assumed to themselves dictatorial powers and have falsely claimed that they can interfere with our personal choices. Who are the governors to decide which human activities are essential? Abortion is essential but Mass is not? No constitution gave them that power. There are two schools of thought on the impairment of fundamental liberties. One requires strict scrutiny and the other requires due process. The strict scrutiny standard mandates the existence of a compelling state interest addressed by the least restrictive means. The procedural due process standard mandates a trial at which the state must prove fault or guilt. The substantive due process standard puts certain personal decisions beyond governmental reach. Closing churches meets no constitutional standard. There is no question that fighting a pandemic is a compelling state interest, yet there are far less restrictive ways to address it than preventing worship. Wearing masks and gloves, staying 10 feet apart, holding Mass outdoors, even taking a personal risk and then self-quarantining are far less restrictive and constitutionally offensive than closing churches. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio violated his oath to uphold the Constitution when he threatened to use force to close permanently all houses of worship that defied his guidelines. And a small-town police department in northern New Jersey exquisitely violated the constitutional rights of Catholics — while enforcing the ever-changing whims of Gov. Phil Murphy. The police claimed they were following the governor’s orders when they barred a priest on Palm Sunday from distributing palms in sealed plastic bags while he and each parishioner wore masks and gloves and were six feet apart in the fresh outdoors. Enough is enough. The employment of government power to assault personal liberty and cut constitutional corners is never justified in a free society, no matter the exigency. The Constitution protects our rights in good times and in bad. Those in power who steal freedom are unworthy of office. But don’t expect them to give us our freedoms back. We will need to pry it away from their cold and covetous hand |
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
The government can give the OK for you to open. They can't force customers to come to you. |
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
|
Re: What's your thoughts
Quote:
On the other hand, you could be dead right. Do you want to take the chance with you and your family? Is going to a drag race worth infecting one of them? |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.