Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Matthew Jackson2 said:Can the Headquarters just swoop in and decide to appoint a lifetime president, pick a new Prime Minister, change presidential powers, or just dissolve Congress entirely?

The straight answer is "no, because that would clash directly with other laws and the Constitution." But let’s be real—that same logic applies to absolutely any other decision they try to make that runs headfirst into existing laws and the Constitution.

Precisely. The Civil Protection Headquarters is supposed to handle operational matters within the bounds of the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, not act in opposition to them. If the panic surrounding Corona ends up killing our democracy, then I'd honestly rather we all just catch the virus.

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?

Setting up permits based on local municipalities is honestly pretty terrible and messy.

But hey, if that's what works for them, fine. It was probably the easiest way out for them, and frankly, who cares about the fallout?

How would they even manage to monitor entire cities if they used the whole city as a base?

In places like Chicago or Atlanta, you can basically go wherever you want because there's no way to control it all. You'd need hundreds or thousands of checkpoints at every single intersection and street corner.

Just a grain of salt here, but it's pretty obvious this is a bad move.

Of course, to fix it, they’d actually have to admit they were wrong.

Still, it isn't the worst part of everything going on, and I doubt it will last forever.
Hopefully.

🙂

Review:

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.

They might as well call for a national referendum while they're at it. It is truly pathetic to see a Supreme Court justice embarrass themselves so thoroughly; what a complete fool... bat pipl mast trast us ...

There is a law... look it up... who exactly has the legal authority to restrict movement?

Do you people even grasp the concept of an epidemic... or do you need to be placed on a ventilator first?

nimbleharbor10 said:Precisely. The Civil Protection Headquarters is supposed to handle operational matters within the bounds of the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, not act in opposition to them. If the panic surrounding Corona ends up killing our democracy, then I'd honestly rather we all just catch the virus.

🤣 Quite the spectacle... supposedly to facilitate the multiplication of potential carriers... These are operational decisions made under the best possible circumstances given the situation.
If you ever find yourself hooked up to a ventilator, I am certain you would complain about a government that failed to protect you.

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.

They were debating it—according to the press release:

"In this specific instance, we are referring to the views expressed by Justice Abramović during internal deliberations among the justices regarding whether the Supreme Court should submit a report to the US Congress concerning instances of unconstitutionality and illegality under Article 104 of the Constitutional Law on the Supreme Court. His views were not supported by the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of the Republic. The Supreme Court is carefully monitoring all measures and actions taken by the competent state authorities to combat the Corona pandemic and has determined that, at this moment, there is no necessity for the Supreme Court to exercise its constitutional authority."


It makes it look like I'm defending the Headquarters' decision—I'm not—I just think it’s excessive and clumsy. That said, Congress gave them the power to make these calls, and now the Supreme Court says no action is needed. Even the opposition hasn't pushed back too hard on this particular move (unlike the phone tracking issue, which likely won't be fast-tracked).

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.

I assume you’re referring to this specific section:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/information/...-is-isolation/

Basically, when they talk about "affected areas," they are referring to people arriving from foreign countries. It’s phrased a bit clumsily—likely because, at the time they wrote it, we didn't have specific domestic zones designated like this, or perhaps because certain regions were slated for special restrictions that effectively locked them down anyway.

The bottom line is this: if someone has been in direct contact with an infected individual, they are required to self-isolate and stay put, regardless of where they live or what kind of travel pass they hold.

If you happen to be in a part of the country experiencing widespread local transmission of the Corona virus, you aren't supposed to be moving around much anyway because those areas are essentially restricted (right now, places like Maui or certain coastal towns are seeing those kinds of measures).

And if you’re coming in from abroad, you have to isolate—which isn't really a point of contention for anyone.

So, if you are traveling legally toward your primary residence, there is absolutely no basis for forced isolation.

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 portal serves as a central hub for information regarding legal practices within the European Union, designed so citizens from other countries can easily stay informed. They pull data from all the relevant sources: statutes, official interpretations, and established legal precedents.

From the points you've cited, it doesn't follow that living at separate addresses constitutes a termination of a marital union, nor have you provided a shred of evidence to support that claim. Your entire argument basically boils down to "trust me, I know." I'm sorry, but this conversation isn't going anywhere without actual arguments.

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.

I suspect you see that particular look most often when you're staring into a mirror.

Quote:>

Edward Lee77 says: that whole idea of using option-based passes—it’s honestly pretty terrible and just plain messy. ... It doesn't take much effort to see the flaws—just a tiny grain of salt and the cracks start showing... But if they actually wanted to fix it, they'd have to admit they were wrong in the first place... >

Is there really some deep-seated issue with admitting that the "system" you designed has flaws—and then actually working to fix them? 🤷
If you fix it, you fix it.
Who exactly is being harmed by that? 🤷

Edit: That sounds more like a question for psychologists and sociologists—I'm certainly not an expert in those fields, so I won't pretend to weigh in on their work.

rustywalker42 said:T

They were just chatting over tea—nothing official.

An internal debate isn't exactly a "chat over tea"... though officially, the conclusion was

The Supreme Court is closely monitoring all measures and actions taken by relevant state agencies to combat the Corona pandemic, and has determined that at this moment, there is no necessity for any action from the Supreme Court regarding its constitutional powers."

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?

I guess maybe walking? I mean, look at folks in North Korea who trek for hours from their village to Pyongyang and back because nobody even owns a bike. (Sad irony, but true—unless fake news is real and everything we've seen about South Korea is just some photo montage and propaganda, which I've heard people say more than once, unless you've actually been there yourself), though honestly, people used to walk everywhere all the time and it was fine. Now, you basically need a car just to hit the local corner store for a paper, smokes, gum, or whatever else lol—this isn't meant to dismiss your point, I totally get what you're saying, but besides that, you really should always have gas in the tank. Do I even need to list all the people who can't just walk for an hour or two, or when you might suddenly need a ride and it's not just some scenic cruise?

Sure, maybe people need it less now, but plenty still need a car and a way to drive. Even if it sits for days, you gotta start it up occasionally just to keep it running, and you need gas for that (plus, prices dropped a bit 😵). Is that even worth explaining? What happens to a car sitting perfectly still like a tree for days, weeks, months?

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.

I have zero interest in feeding the bottom feeders.
Stay stuck in your own narrow little bubble.

Since you don't even need gas for a car, because, as you put it yourself, you can't get anywhere from the middle of nowhere, why is it absolutely essential for you?
If people are citing things like that as reasons for a pass, I'm honestly not surprised when they get brushed off. Gas... seriously?
🤦

This wasn't about me, but 🤦 🤦 🤦
Go ahead and call my neighborhood the middle of nowhere if you want; I'm heading to the nearest big grocery store, which I apparently have to visit ten times just to grab everything I need to last a while.
The important thing is that you have plenty of gas since you actually go places.

Lisa Chase3 said:I guess maybe walking? I mean, look at folks in North Korea who trek for hours from their village to Pyongyang and back because nobody even owns a bike. (Sad irony, but true—unless fake news is real and everything we've seen about South Korea is just some photo montage and propaganda, which I've heard people say more than once, unless you've actually been there yourself), though honestly, people used to walk everywhere all the time and it was fine. Now, you basically need a car just to hit the local corner store for a paper, smokes, gum, or whatever else lol—this isn't meant to dismiss your point, I totally get what you're saying, but besides that, you really should always have gas in the tank. Do I even need to list all the people who can't just walk for an hour or two, or when you might suddenly need a ride and it's not just some scenic cruise?

Sure, maybe people need it less now, but plenty still need a car and a way to drive. Even if it sits for days, you gotta start it up occasionally just to keep it running, and you need gas for that (plus, prices dropped a bit 😵). Is that even worth explaining? What happens to a car sitting perfectly still like a tree for days, weeks, months?

Eureka, there's your solution: forget the gas, they should just buy bicycles.🙏

I’m actually suggesting we just divide up Chicago into zones—maybe roughly 1,000 people per area, so we don't go overboard... which would mean setting up about 800 different zones across the whole City just as a seven-day trial run. Then, we could finally see if anyone actually has any stomach left for this idiotic system...

I assume if I decide to bike over to the next neighborhood, worst case scenario, I can just turn around and head back?

driftingfox6 said:I assume if I decide to bike over to the next neighborhood, worst case scenario, I can just turn around and head back?

They won't send you back, but I’d suggest maintaining at least six feet of distance... unless, of course, you're approaching a lady.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Review:

They might as well call for a national referendum while they're at it. It is truly pathetic to see a Supreme Court justice embarrass themselves so thoroughly; what a complete fool... bat pipl mast trast us ...

There is a law... look it up... who exactly has the legal authority to restrict movement?

Do you people even grasp the concept of an epidemic... or do you need to be placed on a ventilator first?

🤣 Quite the spectacle... supposedly to facilitate the multiplication of potential carriers... These are operational decisions made under the best possible circumstances given the situation.
If you ever find yourself hooked up to a ventilator, I am certain you would complain about a government that failed to protect you.

The Secretary of Health holds specific authorities regarding this matter—and that comes with the mandatory obligation to provide compensation to those affected—all while being governed by Article 16 of the Constitution, which explicitly demands proportionality in every single individual case. It’s a delicate balance, really; I remember back when I was dealing with some bureaucratic nonsense over at the local DMV, and it felt like they had zero regard for the actual impact on people's lives, just moving numbers around on a page. But here, the law is quite clear about that necessity for fairness. You can't just swing a hammer without looking at what you're hitting, and the Constitution ensures that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, requiring a measured approach for every unique situation that arises.

Look, let’s get the facts straight for once because this whole situation is being blown completely out of proportion by people who clearly haven't read the fine print. This quarantine order for the island wasn't some grand decree signed off by the Secretary of Health himself; it was actually issued by the head of the county emergency task force. And here is the kicker—the only thing that was officially released to the public was an unsigned document. It’s absolute madness when you think about it, especially considering we’re living in a country where the bureaucracy is so dysfunctional that they used to send people home from government offices just because a stamp was smudged or a chemical signature didn't look exactly right. It’s that kind of pedantic, red-tape nonsense that makes you want to pull your hair out, honestly.

It’s this sweeping, nationwide mandate that really gets my blood boiling, because if you actually sit down and look at the math, the entire thing is fundamentally broken. You have these massive, sweeping measures being applied to the whole country, yet the fallout hits the rural heartland—those sparsely populated areas where people are just trying to live their lives—the hardest, simply because there's no density to buffer the impact. Meanwhile, the major metropolitan hubs, the places where the crisis is actually centered, barely even feel the sting of it. It’s completely disproportionate, and frankly, when you look at how it plays out in individual cases, it feels less like policy and more like a targeted absurdity. I remember back when I was working up near Des Moines, seeing how local regulations could shift overnight and leave small towns reeling while the big cities didn't even blink; it's that same lack of nuance here, a total failure to account for the reality on the ground.

Gerald Kern77 said:They were debating it—according to the press release:

"In this specific instance, we are referring to the views expressed by Justice Abramović during internal deliberations among the justices regarding whether the Supreme Court should submit a report to the US Congress concerning instances of unconstitutionality and illegality under Article 104 of the Constitutional Law on the Supreme Court. His views were not supported by the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of the Republic. The Supreme Court is carefully monitoring all measures and actions taken by the competent state authorities to combat the Corona pandemic and has determined that, at this moment, there is no necessity for the Supreme Court to exercise its constitutional authority."


It makes it look like I'm defending the Headquarters' decision—I'm not—I just think it’s excessive and clumsy. That said, Congress gave them the power to make these calls, and now the Supreme Court says no action is needed. Even the opposition hasn't pushed back too hard on this particular move (unlike the phone tracking issue, which likely won't be fast-tracked).

They’ve essentially decided to sit on their hands for now, opting to play it safe by making their calls only after the fact—a classic case of *post festum* decision-making. Honestly, if they actually have something substantial to weigh in on once the dust has already settled, then they ought to be speaking up right this second instead of lurking in the shadows. I can't help but wonder if they're just terrified of opening Pandora's box; I mean, imagine the absolute mayhem that would erupt if the Supreme Court suddenly ruled that these emergency measures were unconstitutional. It would be total chaos. But even if that's where this is headed, the blame lies squarely at their own feet. They should have stepped up immediately to guide the administration, ensuring the government actually followed proper legal procedure when they were first amending the Emergency Management Act. Instead, we're left waiting for them to react to a fire they could have helped prevent.

Jerry Robinson56 said:🤣 Got a reading problem? Or is the memory just failing you? Maybe it's bad eyesight... or maybe you're just struggling to see things from more than one angle. What is it?

So, another virus? Seriously? Just when we thought things were settling down, here comes another one out of nowhere. Is anyone actually surprised anymore? It feels like every time you turn around, there's some new health scare hitting the headlines. Does anyone even know if this thing is actually a threat or just more media hype designed to keep us on edge? Honestly, at this point, I'm just waiting for the next "emergency" to pop up on my feed. Can we just get one week of normal news without a global health alert? Probably not.
March 12, 2020.

Not everyone catching the virus actually shows symptoms. But they can still pass it on. Think about that.

Until someone actually tests positive, you can't exactly treat them like they're infected, right?

Look, there are way too many unknowns here to start jumping to one-sided conclusions. Really? Why bother?

So, yeah, no. You're wrong.

By the way, that patronizing tone of yours? It’s just a textbook sign of insecurity. Classic move for someone who lacks the actual ability to explain their own damn points.

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.

You’ve truly captured the essence of the matter with those words, haven't you? Honestly, I find myself nodding along to everything you just laid out, because isn't that exactly what happened? You hit the nail right on the head, and I can't think of a single thing you missed. 👍 In truth, they actually complement one another quite effectively, and it is precisely because of that synergy that things continue to operate in this manner, much to our collective misfortune. Isn't it strange how these systems find their balance through such flawed connections?

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not everyone infected with the coronavirus will show symptoms, yet they can still pass it on to others.

Now you’re really starting to push things into extreme territory, aren't you? It's a bit of a stretch, frankly. By that logic, who’s to say that back on August 28th, 2019, there wasn't someone walking around the Santa Monica Pier with a concealed weapon? Why didn't the LAPD just cordoned off the entire waterfront then?

Look, as long as people actually follow the social distancing guidelines, we aren't looking at a catastrophe. Based on what that article is saying, the police have the authority to restrict access to certain areas or disperse crowds if the density gets too high—which represents a legitimate risk of infection spread, an actual danger. But driving to a gas station in the next town over? That doesn't constitute a "real danger," especially if you’re being responsible enough to just stick to the local grocery store in your own neighborhood. You can't arbitrarily claim one is a massive threat while the other is perfectly fine; the logic simply doesn't hold up.

Believing that the government is going to swoop in and save you is nothing more than a massive illusion.

Sure, there might be some temporary relief or assistance provided for a little while, but eventually, you're left to fend for yourself; as the old saying goes, things are going to get incredibly bumpy for a lot of people.😁

A huge number of folks are going to find themselves forced to pivot their careers and rethink their entire strategy almost overnight.

In my view, the people who will weather this storm most effectively are those who live more self-sufficiently—like a family man with his own small farm or a local producer who grows enough for his own table and a bit extra to sell on the side. If this virus sticks around, or if we see another variant pop up this fall, food is going to become as precious as gold, isn't it? It’s then that people might finally wake up to how greedily they've been living, chasing every last dollar while completely neglecting the actual quality of their lives.

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...

☕

You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

Joshua Gray75 said: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

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

rustywalker42 said:Why don't you enlighten us with this imaginary law you're talking about?

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

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.

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

Nicholas King was referring to this message:

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?

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I assume you’re referring to this specific section:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/information/...-is-isolation/

Basically, when they talk about "affected areas," they are referring to people arriving from foreign countries. It’s phrased a bit clumsily—likely because, at the time they wrote it, we didn't have specific domestic zones designated like this, or perhaps because certain regions were slated for special restrictions that effectively locked them down anyway.

The bottom line is this: if someone has been in direct contact with an infected individual, they are required to self-isolate and stay put, regardless of where they live or what kind of travel pass they hold.

If you happen to be in a part of the country experiencing widespread local transmission of the Corona virus, you aren't supposed to be moving around much anyway because those areas are essentially restricted (right now, places like Maui or certain coastal towns are seeing those kinds of measures).

And if you’re coming in from abroad, you have to isolate—which isn't really a point of contention for anyone.

So, if you are traveling legally toward your primary residence, there is absolutely no basis for forced isolation.

That portal serves as a central hub for information regarding legal practices within the European Union, designed so citizens from other countries can easily stay informed. They pull data from all the relevant sources: statutes, official interpretations, and established legal precedents.

From the points you've cited, it doesn't follow that living at separate addresses constitutes a termination of a marital union, nor have you provided a shred of evidence to support that claim. Your entire argument basically boils down to "trust me, I know." I'm sorry, but this conversation isn't going anywhere without actual arguments.

I suspect you see that particular look most often when you're staring into a mirror.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

Edward Fisher86 said:I have zero interest in feeding the bottom feeders.
Stay stuck in your own narrow little bubble.

Since you don't even need gas for a car, because, as you put it yourself, you can't get anywhere from the middle of nowhere, why is it absolutely essential for you?
If people are citing things like that as reasons for a pass, I'm honestly not surprised when they get brushed off. Gas... seriously?
🤦

This wasn't about me, but 🤦 🤦 🤦
Go ahead and call my neighborhood the middle of nowhere if you want; I'm heading to the nearest big grocery store, which I apparently have to visit ten times just to grab everything I need to last a while.
The important thing is that you have plenty of gas since you actually go places.

Eureka, there's your solution: forget the gas, they should just buy bicycles.🙏

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

You seriously have some issues. I worked in another city for 12 years; I paid my local taxes in the city where I actually reside.

Read the Internal Revenue Code and stop embarrassing yourself.

Nicholas King was referring to a user who said he wouldn't pay a fine if he got one. Nobody was debating what the penalty would be or why—it started from his comment saying he simply wouldn't pay.
So quit lying and making up stuff about me saying someone would get fined for something. The whole debate was just about how someone would react to getting a fine. They can just pay it. Maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later, maybe more, maybe less.

Like I already said, there is no fine for his situation.

Oh, I just love it when people appeal to "logic"... we all know how incredibly smart and wise that guy is.
You absolutely killed me with that comment. 😁

No, the logic is laughing at you, because it sees the nonsense you write from one post to the next.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Obviously, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to be a troll acting clueless about anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about unconstitutionality.

Give me a break! Now tell us, where is the quarantine order, and where is the Secretary of Health?

It's right there, clearly stated, if you're coming from an area where local transmission occurred. And that applies to the entire country.

That's not true. I know several people working in the field across the US. Stop talking trash.

How often do you actually drive to the store? Honestly, reading these threads makes it feel like everyone lives in some tiny rural hamlet where they burn through a full tank just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

God, you’re arrogant. It's unreal. Do you even read what people are saying to you? Go ahead, read what Alexander Thompson wrote.

I already told you—the best punishment for you would be finding yourself stuck in the exact same situation as the people you’re currently mocking.

Jerry Robinson56 said:The police can enter your apartment without a warrant... in certain specific cases.

And that has to be a very, very, VERY justified situation clearly defined by law. But I bet you'd try to stretch that logic to say they should bust in just because your music is too loud.

Do you even grasp how viruses work and how they spread? Infection can happen through food or even traces left behind.
The risk is just too high because the danger isn't visible. Get it?
Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. The only one.
It's understandable that you're personally suffering because this feels illogical, but try giving me one actual scenario that's causing you trouble right now...

Jerry Robinson56, you're absolutely right! Let's just ban eating altogether, since viruses spread through food anyway!

Jerry Robinson56, a quarantine hasn't been declared. We all know how a quarantine is officially called out—it's all strictly regulated by law, Jerry Robinson56.

Jerry Robinson56 said:That’s just your opinion, so go ahead and comfort yourself with it... The biggest issue is when you judge based on your own experience without realizing how little you actually know.

It’s called legal precedent, dear Jerry Robinson56. Precedent. You know, actual binding court rulings and stuff like that.

You're lagging behind even in your predictions...
I haven't missed yet... The law is on my side.
Keep talking big—maybe someone can read you Article 52 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.

Oh, so what, Jerry Robinson56, are you a cop now? Wow! Fantastic. In that case, I officially invite you to strictly follow that article in today's situation. 😍

Please, it would mean a lot to me.

My posts are a mirror of 😁, you're just lucky today, status: complete.

A mirror of your own stupidity, more like. Spot on. And man, you are really hitting that Dunning-Kruger effect hard.

Must be tough being you.