Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Joshua Gray75 said:I’m going to say this again—and I might just have to repeat myself a few more times if necessary:
Personally, I don't have an issue with the concept of movement restrictions themselves.
The real issue lies in the fact that applying these limitations based on municipal boundaries (that is, arbitrary administrative lines) is completely illogical and—if you really want to put it that way—disproportionate...

Article 16 of the Constitution states:

Rights and freedoms may only be restricted by law in order to protect the freedom and rights of others, the legal order, public morality, and health.
Any restriction of freedom or rights must be [B]proportionate to the nature of the need for such a restriction in each individual case.[/B]

Where exactly is the "proportionality" in this?
Restricting movement within a small suburb of 6km2 versus restricting it within a massive metropolitan area like Washington, D.C., which spans 640km2—I fail to see any "proportionate nature of the need" there—regardless of how one chooses to define it...

☕

Setting aside the debate over legal foundations, this point actually makes sense—the decision is clumsy in many ways, lacks clarity, fails to account for various scenarios, and hands far too much discretionary power to local "big shots."

Nicholas King said:Police Departments. If we talked about individual precincts in every single city, it would be an absolute circus.

The real point here is the sheer absurdity of granting "restrictions" to more than half a million people.

Hmm... maybe in big cities... but out here, one police station covers several different counties. In other words, the precinct that issued my ID isn't even in my actual town—mostly because my town doesn't even exist on its own.

🤷

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

That bolded part is simply incorrect... though you basically answered your own mistake right below it.

It’s funny how you act like an expert on everything—only to drop something this nonsensical.
🤦

Let me save you some time:
...c/p "it is prescribed that local income tax be paid at the rate determined by the municipality or city, and it belongs to the municipality or city within whose territory the taxpayer's residence or habitual abode is located"...

https://www.irs.gov/pub....aspx?id=18445

Gerald Kern77 said:Here you go, the legal amendments.

The legal foundation itself is airtight—the real question is whether the decision and its execution should have been more logical, perhaps accounting for a broader range of real-world scenarios.

What kind of messy, nonsensical formulation is this?

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

The trip to the center of town where my shop, pharmacy, and doctor are located—I definitely need gas for that. 3.7 miles.
Are you expecting me to walk all that way or...?
There isn't a single gas station in my municipality.

Is that clear enough for you?

No—I don't need fuel for the car—since I'm not allowed to go anywhere anyway 🙄....

🤦

After those two gems of yours (the first being about who gets a cut of the profits...), I really have nothing left to discuss with you—so please, stop quoting my posts.
As for your personal frustrations (with work, life, or whatever else...) try dealing with them somewhere more appropriate.

Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any more absurd, someone actually pulls you aside and asks, "What do you even need fuel for?" 😵

Joseph Taylor11 said:Hmm... maybe in big cities... but out here, one police station covers several different counties. In other words, the precinct that issued my ID isn't even in my actual town—mostly because my town doesn't even exist on its own.

🤷

None of the small towns actually have them—they're all located in the bigger cities.
The link above is for the San Francisco area, and that's basically how our local officials suggested splitting up the county when they were talking about movement restrictions.

Drew Johnson2 said:Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any more absurd, someone actually pulls you aside and asks, "What do you even need fuel for?" 😵

🙂

I had to read that sentence twice just to process it...

Though, honestly, his little declaration regarding "who pays the local tax" is arguably even more striking... ☕

Drew Johnson2 said:Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any more absurd, someone actually pulls you aside and asks, "What do you even need fuel for?" 😵

It could certainly be worse—if this continues, I’ll likely have to apply for a special permit just to drive to a Suburban City to swap out my tires.😵 Then, inevitably, someone will question why I’m still driving on winter treads when it's over 70 degrees out.

Since my local tire shop is in a Suburban City—which, given where I am, is quite a trek from my neck of the woods—getting tires changed wouldn't be considered an "epidemiological risk." But since it is... well, here we are.🤦

Small Town on the island of Maui—just a little settlement without its own grocery stores or pharmacies... they all fall under the jurisdiction of Old Town, which is where they have their 3.7 miles. Now, Old Town doesn't even have a gas station, so people actually have to drive out to Key West or Maui itself just to fuel up. They even need a permit to get through. And yet, someone has the audacity to ask what kind of use anyone would have for fuel in Small Town... as if that were the primary concern. Honestly, how do they even manage to get to the grocery store in Old Town in the first place?

Nicholas King said:So, here we go—the Secretary is claiming they’ve already issued nearly half a million passes, and he’s hinting at a massive surge coming soon since companies haven't even started sending in their group requests yet. Apparently, he thinks the whole pass system has been an absolute success and totally justified its existence.

He completely dodged the actual issue regarding restricting movement to specific police jurisdictions instead of just sticking to municipal boundaries.

I just think they’re obsessed with total numbers, when the real metric should be how many permits are actually active on any given day... since some are good for 14 days and others are just a three-hour window.

Gerald Kern77 said:It could certainly be worse—if this continues, I’ll likely have to apply for a special permit just to drive to a Suburban City to swap out my tires.😵 Then, inevitably, someone will question why I’m still driving on winter treads when it's over 70 degrees out.

Since my local tire shop is in a Suburban City—which, given where I am, is quite a trek from my neck of the woods—getting tires changed wouldn't be considered an "epidemiological risk." But since it is... well, here we are.🤦

Meanwhile, I'll be driving to a shop in 3.7 miles (my own town) ... rather than traveling to 3 (the nearby major city) ... which will surely do wonders for reducing the epidemiological risk of spreading the virus.

Nicholas King said:So, here we go—the Secretary is claiming they’ve already issued nearly half a million passes, and he’s hinting at a massive surge coming soon since companies haven't even started sending in their group requests yet. Apparently, he thinks the whole pass system has been an absolute success and totally justified its existence.

He completely dodged the actual issue regarding restricting movement to specific police jurisdictions instead of just sticking to municipal boundaries.

How is it "justified" if they've already handed out over half a million of them?

Bryan Taylor6 said:How is it "justified" if they've already handed out over half a million of them?

At this rate, we’ll have more entry permits issued than actual citizens left...

Hmm.... no... yeah...☕

You’ll probably have to take that question straight to the Secretary.

Jerry Robinson56 said:That isn't the Law to respect Anton, rustywalker42 😁... it lays out everything explicitly within its pages and reaches back into the last century ... let the forum users play a little game... I’m essentially calling them fools and simpletons here (that’s a value judgment, not a fact), as they criticize a Headquarters that is performing excellently and exclusively in the interest of American residents.
As if he didn't commit enough blunders during his time as Prime Minister, the "top law student"... if you can even believe it.

Why don't you enlighten us with this imaginary law you're talking about?

Gerald Kern77 said:It doesn't need to be explicit—this provision covers it.

"In the event of special circumstances involving an unforeseen and uncontrollable event that threatens the lives and health of citizens, high-value property, significantly damages the environment, disrupts economic activity, or causes substantial economic loss, the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America issues decisions and instructions to be implemented by local and regional Civil Protection Headquarters."

Furthermore, the Infectious Disease Protection Act includes measures such as:

"Prohibiting the movement of persons, or restricting movement within infected or directly threatened areas."

That could apply to any area—there isn't a single county left without COVID.

No, it doesn't cover it. That decision says absolutely nothing about banning citizens from moving around.

Gerald Kern77 said:That isn't quite right—it actually gave the Headquarters the power to issue mandates; which explains why they rushed that whole process through Congress.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the Official Gazette:

"Pursuant to Article 22.a of the Civil Protection System Act (Official Gazette No. 82/15, 118/18, and 31/20), the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America, on March 23, 2020, hereby issues

DECISION

REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVING ONE'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DOMICILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

Gerald Kern77 said:It isn't me making the claim—it's the Supreme Court distancing itself from a single member's opinion
via a press release

Congress moved with intentional speed—debate in the morning, immediate vote, Milanovic signing it instantly, and then straight to the Official Gazette—to grant expanded powers to the National Headquarters, including this one. We can argue about it all we want, but even the Supreme Court has sided with them.

Just look at who actually made that call. Congress didn't give the Headquarters any authority at all.

The Supreme Court will decide post festum. Classic. We'll see once the constitutional lawsuits start flying.

Gerald Kern77 said:I assume you're a lawyer?

The Supreme Court ruled in their favor—I suppose they didn't spot those loopholes you're so fond of.

I'll keep my own opinion on whether these decisions are actually good—they've certainly made my private life a mess—but the Headquarters has the authority to make them. Of course, if Congress declares a state of emergency under Article 17 of the Constitution, then any decisions limiting civil liberties require a two-thirds majority.

Man, how easily people just hand over their freedom. 🙏

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

Nicholas King was referring to this message:

wiredbison272 said:They shot down my request too, and they didn't even bother giving me a reason why. Honestly, whatever, if I need to head out, I'm going. They haven't caught me yet, and I'm really hoping they don't, but if they do decide to pull me over, they can try and hit me with a fine for all it matters to me.

Now tell us, oh brilliant legal expert, what kind of fine does someone get if they ignore the "order" regarding movement restrictions when they AREN'T in self-isolation?

You pay taxes based on where you work.

No, that's not true, but I'll wait until you dig yourself even deeper into the mud, and then I'll tear your arguments apart, just like usual. ☕

Don't you have an example that proves otherwise?

A few more.

That’s because you think you actually understand the law just because you claimed to have "read a lot about it." Newsflash: you haven't.

Oh, I see. You think you "know," but you clearly "know" better. Your supposed "expertise" is pretty obvious from how you respond to every single comment. Honestly, you're a total joke. You don't even understand basic laws.

So, you’re telling me you need gas for a car you don't even use? I mean, like you said yourself, you can't exactly get anywhere without it. So why? Why the hell is that necessary?
If you’re actually using moronic excuses like that to try and get a permit, then honestly? I’m not even surprised when they blow you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

I just want you to be in that exact situation. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.

No.I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What was that?Not him. Just one. Not plural—singular.
It’s called the Communicable Disease Act. This version has been sitting on the books for ages, and if you actually bother to look at Article 47 under Security Measures, it spells out exactly how much power the Secretary can wield. It's all right there in black and white.
I’ve already explained this a thousand times to these self-proclaimed "legal experts" who clearly learned everything they know from Google. But sure, every time some amateur like you pops up, you all start rehashing the exact same nonsense. Why do we keep running in circles?

If you actually studied law at one of our universities, then I’m suggesting they should just take your degree away.

A sad pokaži odluku ministra. I onda reci — what does that article even have to do with what’s actually happening on the ground?

Drew Johnson2 said:Small Town on the island of Maui—just a little settlement without its own grocery stores or pharmacies... they all fall under the jurisdiction of Old Town, which is where they have their 3.7 miles. Now, Old Town doesn't even have a gas station, so people actually have to drive out to Key West or Maui itself just to fuel up. They even need a permit to get through. And yet, someone has the audacity to ask what kind of use anyone would have for fuel in Small Town... as if that were the primary concern. Honestly, how do they even manage to get to the grocery store in Old Town in the first place?

Well, when you live in Chicago.... 🤷 ... you clearly haven't the slightest clue how life works in those 420 different municipalities that make up the US...
Honestly... I'd be too embarrassed to ever make a statement like that... ☕

Review:

vividranger8 said:Alright, so we've got you saying one thing, and then there's a Supreme Court judge saying something completely different. I guess everyone will just have to decide for themselves who's actually right about this.

"A judge from a barn, what an idiot?".. and yet that very judge was just reprimanded by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a496099...bramovica.html


Šeparović: The Supreme Court does not back Justice Abramović's positions

I wrote that the law exist ... the connection leads back to Božinović ...

Gerald Kern77 said:It isn't me making the claim—it's the Supreme Court distancing itself from a single member's opinion
via a press release

Congress moved with intentional speed—debate in the morning, immediate vote, Milanovic signing it instantly, and then straight to the Official Gazette—to grant expanded powers to the National Headquarters, including this one. We can argue about it all we want, but even the Supreme Court has sided with them.

The Supreme Court didn't actually say that Abramović was wrong; they just clarified that his take is strictly his personal interpretation rather than the official position of the court. As it stands, the court hasn't even established a formal stance because they haven't officially ruled on the matter yet. Now, look, the fact that Abramović's view isn't the "official" view doesn't necessarily mean the court disagrees with him—their actual ruling could end up being the exact opposite, identical, or somewhere in the middle—but we won't know until they actually sit down and process the case. Until they do, there is simply no official stance to speak of.

Honestly, the idea that the Supreme Court is just sitting on its hands, waiting until everything is over before they weigh in, is a special kind of absurdity if you ask me. I mean, think about it: the primary function of that institution is to ensure the Constitution is actually respected, yet here they are, essentially waiting for a potential violation of the Constitution to become a moot point before they finally decide to chime in on whether it was legal or not. It's maddening.

Matthew Jackson2 said:The Supreme Court didn't actually say that Abramović was wrong; they just clarified that his take is strictly his personal interpretation rather than the official position of the court. As it stands, the court hasn't even established a formal stance because they haven't officially ruled on the matter yet. Now, look, the fact that Abramović's view isn't the "official" view doesn't necessarily mean the court disagrees with him—their actual ruling could end up being the exact opposite, identical, or somewhere in the middle—but we won't know until they actually sit down and process the case. Until they do, there is simply no official stance to speak of.

Honestly, the idea that the Supreme Court is just sitting on its hands, waiting until everything is over before they weigh in, is a special kind of absurdity if you ask me. I mean, think about it: the primary function of that institution is to ensure the Constitution is actually respected, yet here they are, essentially waiting for a potential violation of the Constitution to become a moot point before they finally decide to chime in on whether it was legal or not. It's maddening.

Exactly. 👍