Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Rachel Roberts6 said:You don't have to deal with that. I just put "Various destinations" in the destination field when I wasn't 100% sure, and then I used the notes section to explain why I chose that option and listed about 7 or 8 spots. I basically just wrote that because of the nature of the job, it's impossible to pin down an exact location for every single date, and that was that.

Gotta be a little creative, right?

Besides, I was driving all over your county the other day and nobody even asked me for anything.

Is that actually allowed?
I honestly thought you needed a separate permit for every single stop.
My "old" one is still valid until the 20th, but next week I'm supposed to hit 5 or 6 different spots outside the designated area.

They start hassling me the second I leave the city limits.

Anyway, thanks for the heads-up.
I'll give it a shot.

hollowfox3 said:That’s why I say, don't even bother trying to "simplify" it. Either scrap the whole thing or just let the code serve as proof that you aren't stuck in isolation or quarantine—if that's even necessary.

Exactly.
This whole nonsense shouldn't have existed in the first place, right?
Just think about how much time and money went down the drain because of this mess...

Bryan Taylor6 said:To abolish a municipality, you'd need a two-thirds majority in Congress. That’s how they were created, and that’s the only way they can be dismantled...

I suggest everyone follow the letter of the law... it is quite simple enough to just keep a close eye on all mayors and send them straight to prison for their little schemes... along with seizing any assets they failed to report or acquired through illicit means... easy enough, isn't it?

https://www.law.gov/z/132/Local-Self-Government-Act

One simply needs to understand the law, and they certainly held a majority in Congress back then... but then again, an idle man never truly understood the law then, much like he doesn't now... or perhaps he simply refuses to act, which is his defining characteristic.

fadedranger162 said:@Joseph Taylor11 It probably varies from person to person—some folks feel one way, some the other, and some are stuck right in the middle. Honestly, the only thing we can really do is slash those costs. Right now, every single tiny municipality has to staff its own department heads, assistants, deputies, and so on, plus their own local utility companies. Sure, you could lay off the same number of laborers, but what are we supposed to do with all those directors, VPs, and high-level bureaucrats?

If we actually scaled this back properly, we’d likely have somewhere between 30,000 to 50,000 people completely out of a job. Most of them have probably never even stepped foot in the private sector, so you can bet they’ll fight tooth and nail using every dirty trick in the book just to coast their way toward retirement.

Edit:
@Jerry Robinson56
That’s exactly what gets under my skin. We saw how China handled things, and we saw how Italy did it—they basically knew what was coming a month ahead of time. But here? We’re always caught flat-footed, like a pasta maker getting blindsided by a blizzard in the middle of January. Then we end up with these half-baked, rushed-out regulations that nobody knows how to actually enforce, otherwise, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.

I mean, look, the French know exactly how the contagion arrived. But how do you pin it down? Do you tell them the sailors probably picked it up while taking care of business at the docks, or is it more likely that a different crew swapped shifts with them from the coast and brought the virus onboard?

Look, he isn't some lazy slacker; he was just pointing out that what was happening might actually be illegal. Didn't we choose democracy, after all? And if everything was already perfectly regulated by law, why did they suddenly need to scramble and cook up a new rule just to patch the holes? Even here, as far as I know, a state of emergency hasn't even been declared yet, so there’s no reason to be invoking those specific laws. That’s where the whole mess lies.

At no point was anything illegal... throwing tantrums is the only specialty of this "gentleman," and his ideas are as rotten as he is...
They weren't patching holes; they were providing clarifications on how existing laws apply, intended to make both understanding and enforcement easier.
A curfew could have been implemented without any issues, and then we would have spent the whole time hearing people whine, "Wait, how is this allowed?"
It is enough that Minister Božinović stated—exercise your authority under Article 52 until further notice.
The system looks after itself; unfortunately, society and individuals are merely secondary considerations.

Jerry Robinson56 said:I suggest everyone follow the letter of the law... it is quite simple enough to just keep a close eye on all mayors and send them straight to prison for their little schemes... along with seizing any assets they failed to report or acquired through illicit means... easy enough, isn't it?

https://www.law.gov/z/132/Local-Self-Government-Act

One simply needs to understand the law, and they certainly held a majority in Congress back then... but then again, an idle man never truly understood the law then, much like he doesn't now... or perhaps he simply refuses to act, which is his defining characteristic.

Daaa, they had a coalition of parties, but with a majority like that, you just have to wipe them out and suddenly you're the minority...😁

And as far as laws go, we actually had an asset origin law once, but the Republican Party scrapped it the second they got their hands on power...

I don't know why, I really don't... just so things can always stay... how do you say... just how they are?

And what's your big idea here? Abolishing a municipality based on some law just because a mayor got caught stealing?😁

Bryan Taylor6 said:Daaa, they had a coalition of parties, but with a majority like that, you just have to wipe them out and suddenly you're the minority...😁

And as far as laws go, we actually had an asset origin law once, but the Republican Party scrapped it the second they got their hands on power...

I don't know why, I really don't... just so things can always stay... how do you say... just how they are?

And what's your big idea here? Abolishing a municipality based on some law just because a mayor got caught stealing?😁

I wouldn't go that far...


The President of the Presidency of the Republic of America, Ivo Latin

And that particular slacker, currently sitting in the President's chair, gave out that 2012 amnesty—who could possibly guarantee anything at this point?.. though he can still pull strings if he wants.

It isn't about some arbitrary rule; it’s simply the criminal code... everything follows the letter of the law.
And then you appoint righteous people to those positions. Or perhaps use temporary appointments...

Jerry Robinson56 said:I wouldn't go that far...


The President of the Presidency of the Republic of America, Ivo Latin

And that particular slacker, currently sitting in the President's chair, gave out that 2012 amnesty—who could possibly guarantee anything at this point?.. though he can still pull strings if he wants.

It isn't about some arbitrary rule; it’s simply the criminal code... everything follows the letter of the law.
And then you appoint righteous people to those positions. Or perhaps use temporary appointments...

It’s funny how the Republican law was repealed and then the Democrats amended it.😁

Bryan Taylor6 said:To abolish a municipality, you'd need a two-thirds majority in Congress. That’s how they were created, and that’s the only way they can be dismantled...

🤔 Well, the Local Self-Government Act isn't exactly an organic law or part of the Constitution, so does it really require such a massive majority in Congress? I haven't checked the specifics, but that sounds a bit excessive.

Bryan Taylor6 said:But who’s going to foot the bill for a referendum?
And how would you even pull that off—running a referendum for every single municipality?...
That would be at least 500 separate votes...😁

And what about the people losing their livelihoods because of these mandates? Who’s going to compensate them for that loss of income?

Some questions just don't have a price tag on them.

I'm not exactly out here drafting specific ballot measures; I'm just pointing out that we actually have different ways to push back.
We aren't nearly as helpless as they want us to believe.

Review:

Sam Green73 said:And what about the people losing their livelihoods because of these mandates? Who’s going to compensate them for that loss of income?

Some questions just don't have a price tag on them.

I'm not exactly out here drafting specific ballot measures; I'm just pointing out that we actually have different ways to push back.
We aren't nearly as helpless as they want us to believe.

I am of the opinion that one ought to focus primarily on the experience of living itself. We spend far too much energy obsessing over gains or losses—metrics that are ultimately transient and can, in many instances, be recouped depending on the specific consequences of those losses. It is a matter of perspective, really.
When it comes to the banking sector, my position remains unchanged: we should liquidate them immediately. All state-level receivables and payables ought to be consolidated and redirected into a single, "new" central banking entity. This is a proposition I would extend to every other financial institution as well.
I was watching Zdenko Adrović make his remarks yesterday, claiming that a 66% majority constitutes a massive mandate. 🤦 In light of where Goran Aleksić absolutely tore him apart. 🙏 🙏 🙏Man... Ti si Čovjek 👍And let us not overlook that brilliant leader who had the decency to gently inform Adrović that common sense is actually a prerequisite for having any kind of meaningful conversation.

From a purely legal standpoint, Article 373 regarding mandatory obligations is perfectly clear This, too, is quite suitable.
*Ignorantia iuris nocet*. Or, if you prefer the English translation: ignorance of the law is no excuse. It remains one of the most fundamental pillars of our legal system. One cannot simply walk into a courtroom and offer up a plea that they were unaware a certain action was prohibited or regulated by statute. The law assumes you know it, whether you actually do or not.
In the hierarchy of our legal system, statutes stand second only to the Constitution. It is a fundamental principle that any restriction on civil liberties or the imposition of new burdens upon the citizenry can only be legitimized through specific legislation. Every action taken by public authorities must find its footing in established law and remain strictly compliant with its provisions. Anything less isn't just an overreach; it's a violation of the very framework that holds our republic together.
It is a common misconception to assume that legal norms are confined solely to statutes passed by Congress. In reality, much of the functional framework resides within sub-statutory regulations. These administrative rules and secondary provisions serve to refine the broader mandates established by law, providing the granular detail necessary to govern the specific procedures and obligations of both government agencies and private citizens alike.
Take the federal agencies, for instance; they go about drafting their own specific regulations to dictate exactly how certain laws are actually carried out on the ground.
The government in the United States has recently released tens of thousands of various legal regulations.
There is an overwhelming proliferation of legal regulations being churned out by administrative agencies and local government bodies. It is quite frankly excessive.

The sheer volume of amendments and updates to our legal regulations is staggering; one finds themselves in a state of perpetual necessity to stay informed just to maintain a basic grasp of the current landscape.
As we all well know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Understanding regulations isn't a pursuit reserved solely for lawyers. The fundamental distinction between an entrepreneur who thrives and one who fails often comes down to a single factor: successful entrepreneurs possess the right information at exactly the right moment.

It is utterly absurd to hold the state accountable when it was simply exercising its legal mandate to protect its citizens—a right clearly established under the aforementioned police regulations.
And let’s not overlook the companies that actually maintained their integrity and refused to exploit the current situation for a quick buck.
And that is exactly why we have laws on the books to handle such matters. 😁/
The federal government ought to be conducting a thorough investigation into recent events and mounting a draconian response to address them. Where exactly was the damage inflicted—was it on the corporations themselves, or on the individuals at the hands of their employers or other parties? ...

Jerry Robinson56 said:At no point was anything illegal... throwing tantrums is the only specialty of this "gentleman," and his ideas are as rotten as he is...
They weren't patching holes; they were providing clarifications on how existing laws apply, intended to make both understanding and enforcement easier.
A curfew could have been implemented without any issues, and then we would have spent the whole time hearing people whine, "Wait, how is this allowed?"
It is enough that Minister Božinović stated—exercise your authority under Article 52 until further notice.
The system looks after itself; unfortunately, society and individuals are merely secondary considerations.

Look, nothing was technically illegal, but it wasn't exactly by the book either. Even one of the Supreme Court justices weighed in on how the headquarters was operating, basically warning them to actually read the fine print regarding who is a member, who can make which decisions, and what powers they actually hold—not just this one rule, but every single one they passed.

It’s not "throwing shade." If we’ve decided to live in a democracy and respect the law, then we should actually follow it. That doesn't take away from what they achieved, but just because things are messy doesn't mean everyone gets to do whatever they want—just like we aren't allowed to right now.

They probably didn't think about it at the time because they were too busy rushing to react, but hey, they wrote their own procedures and laws. If small business owners can get screwed over because of some dead letter in a statute, then shouldn't the people in charge be held to those exact same standards? Or is that not how you see it?

They had the option to use that specific article, but they didn't, so now they have to play by the rest of the rules.

Look, we could honestly just scrap these movement restrictions nationwide across every single state right now. It’d be better to just get it over with, since every single mandate needs some kind of timeframe anyway.

Any lawyers in the house? I’m looking for an interpretation of Article 17 of the US Constitution.
Specifically that part where it says the scope of any restrictions can't result in inequality among people...

hollowfox3 said:Look, we could honestly just scrap these movement restrictions nationwide across every single state right now. It’d be better to just get it over with, since every single mandate needs some kind of timeframe anyway.

And following up on that—is it actually possible for one state to allow free movement within its borders while certain counties refuse to cooperate? I assume that's not how it works, but we haven't lived in a country governed by logic for quite a while now, so I figured I'd ask... 🤣 (Honestly, I wouldn't even be surprised if that actually happened... ☕ Unfortunately.)

Which law are we talking about here—Article 17 of which specific act? I mean, technically speaking, sure, that might hold water, but legally? We probably need someone who actually knows their way around the books to weigh in on this.

As for that second point, unless there are a couple of hotspots right in that municipality or somewhere super close by, you wouldn't expect to see stuff like this happening. But honestly, we won't know for sure until we see what kind of nonsense the local officials cook up.

Jerry Robinson56 said:At no point was anything illegal... throwing tantrums is the only specialty of this "gentleman," and his ideas are as rotten as he is...
They weren't patching holes; they were providing clarifications on how existing laws apply, intended to make both understanding and enforcement easier.
A curfew could have been implemented without any issues, and then we would have spent the whole time hearing people whine, "Wait, how is this allowed?"
It is enough that Minister Božinović stated—exercise your authority under Article 52 until further notice.
The system looks after itself; unfortunately, society and individuals are merely secondary considerations.

So, let me get this straight: after someone goes through the trouble of giving you a massive, detailed breakdown of the situation, you just wait about ten pages and then jump back in as if none of it matters!?

Article 52 allows for restricting movement and keeping people within a specific area only while an immediate danger exists, and strictly for the duration of that danger. It doesn't grant permission to institute a curfew, nor does it allow for measures taken against a potential threat.

fadedranger162 said:Look, nothing was technically illegal, but it wasn't exactly by the book either. Even one of the Supreme Court justices weighed in on how the headquarters was operating, basically warning them to actually read the fine print regarding who is a member, who can make which decisions, and what powers they actually hold—not just this one rule, but every single one they passed.

It’s not "throwing shade." If we’ve decided to live in a democracy and respect the law, then we should actually follow it. That doesn't take away from what they achieved, but just because things are messy doesn't mean everyone gets to do whatever they want—just like we aren't allowed to right now.

They probably didn't think about it at the time because they were too busy rushing to react, but hey, they wrote their own procedures and laws. If small business owners can get screwed over because of some dead letter in a statute, then shouldn't the people in charge be held to those exact same standards? Or is that not how you see it?

They had the option to use that specific article, but they didn't, so now they have to play by the rest of the rules.

Given that even a Supreme Court Justice like Piplmasttrastas is unwilling to hear my conclusions regarding certain individuals within the Democratic Party...
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of whether it holds any water. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was quite explicit in his warning to him: stop trying to build a career on the development of your own inability to draw logical conclusions within complex subject matter.

I have spent considerable time reviewing the recent documentation regarding the legal challenges surrounding the emergency measures implemented during the height of the pandemic. It is a dense, rather exhausting read, but necessary if one wishes to understand how the administrative state attempts to bypass traditional oversight. The core of the matter rests on whether the executive branch overstepped its constitutional bounds when issuing specific mandates under the guise of public safety. From my perspective, we are seeing a recurring pattern where the Cabinet attempts to implement sweeping regulations without the explicit authorization typically required from Congress. It is a calculated move, designed to present the public with a fait accompli before any meaningful debate can occur. There is a certain cynicism inherent in the way these legal frameworks are being stretched. One begins to wonder if the protections enshrined in the Constitution of the United States are being treated as mere suggestions rather than absolute boundaries. While the necessity of managing a national crisis is indisputable, the precedent set by these maneuvers is deeply unsettling. We are witnessing a slow, methodical expansion of executive power that, once established, is notoriously difficult to retract. It is much like watching a heavy fog roll into a valley; you don't realize how much the landscape has changed until you find yourself unable to recognize the landmarks you once relied upon. The legal machinery is moving, and frankly, it isn't looking back.

It is either what it is, or it isn't. There is no middle ground, no gray area, and certainly no room for nuance when the facts are laid bare. It is a binary reality. Period.

fadedranger162 said:Look, nothing was technically illegal, but it wasn't exactly by the book either. Even one of the Supreme Court justices weighed in on how the headquarters was operating, basically warning them to actually read the fine print regarding who is a member, who can make which decisions, and what powers they actually hold—not just this one rule, but every single one they passed.

It’s not "throwing shade." If we’ve decided to live in a democracy and respect the law, then we should actually follow it. That doesn't take away from what they achieved, but just because things are messy doesn't mean everyone gets to do whatever they want—just like we aren't allowed to right now.

They probably didn't think about it at the time because they were too busy rushing to react, but hey, they wrote their own procedures and laws. If small business owners can get screwed over because of some dead letter in a statute, then shouldn't the people in charge be held to those exact same standards? Or is that not how you see it?

They had the option to use that specific article, but they didn't, so now they have to play by the rest of the rules.

It is just as corrupt as the individual in question.

It appears we have reached a point where one must wonder: does The Cabinet simply lack the basic competence required to respect the Law? 🤔 It is a fallacy to suggest that Andrej Plenković was responsible for drafting that specific regulation. In reality, he simply took advantage of the strategic lull while Congress was on recess. As for my own efforts, I am doing the absolute best I can under the circumstances; whether that result meets the highest possible standard is an entirely different matter, and frankly, it has very little to do with them.

fadedranger162 said:Look, nothing was technically illegal, but it wasn't exactly by the book either. Even one of the Supreme Court justices weighed in on how the headquarters was operating, basically warning them to actually read the fine print regarding who is a member, who can make which decisions, and what powers they actually hold—not just this one rule, but every single one they passed.

It’s not "throwing shade." If we’ve decided to live in a democracy and respect the law, then we should actually follow it. That doesn't take away from what they achieved, but just because things are messy doesn't mean everyone gets to do whatever they want—just like we aren't allowed to right now.

They probably didn't think about it at the time because they were too busy rushing to react, but hey, they wrote their own procedures and laws. If small business owners can get screwed over because of some dead letter in a statute, then shouldn't the people in charge be held to those exact same standards? Or is that not how you see it?

They had the option to use that specific article, but they didn't, so now they have to play by the rest of the rules.

People ought to be considering their fellow citizens and their fundamental rights, rather than obsessing solely over their own narrow professional interests.

fadedranger162 said:Which law are we talking about here—Article 17 of which specific act? I mean, technically speaking, sure, that might hold water, but legally? We probably need someone who actually knows their way around the books to weigh in on this.

As for that second point, unless there are a couple of hotspots right in that municipality or somewhere super close by, you wouldn't expect to see stuff like this happening. But honestly, we won't know for sure until we see what kind of nonsense the local officials cook up.

My bad... I accidentally deleted "the Constitution of the United States" while I was editing my post.

As for that second question—no, there aren't any outbreaks within the municipality or even in the surrounding areas. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single case reported in the township itself, though I can't say that with absolute certainty since they don't release those specific numbers to the public. That said, things are looking pretty solid across the entire county.
Since the mayor refused to sign that agreement with the other townships—the ones that actually wanted to let people move around without needing special permits—I can't help but wonder which way the wind is blowing.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Given that even a Supreme Court Justice like Piplmasttrastas is unwilling to hear my conclusions regarding certain individuals within the Democratic Party...
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of whether it holds any water. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was quite explicit in his warning to him: stop trying to build a career on the development of your own inability to draw logical conclusions within complex subject matter.

I have spent considerable time reviewing the recent documentation regarding the legal challenges surrounding the emergency measures implemented during the height of the pandemic. It is a dense, rather exhausting read, but necessary if one wishes to understand how the administrative state attempts to bypass traditional oversight. The core of the matter rests on whether the executive branch overstepped its constitutional bounds when issuing specific mandates under the guise of public safety. From my perspective, we are seeing a recurring pattern where the Cabinet attempts to implement sweeping regulations without the explicit authorization typically required from Congress. It is a calculated move, designed to present the public with a fait accompli before any meaningful debate can occur. There is a certain cynicism inherent in the way these legal frameworks are being stretched. One begins to wonder if the protections enshrined in the Constitution of the United States are being treated as mere suggestions rather than absolute boundaries. While the necessity of managing a national crisis is indisputable, the precedent set by these maneuvers is deeply unsettling. We are witnessing a slow, methodical expansion of executive power that, once established, is notoriously difficult to retract. It is much like watching a heavy fog roll into a valley; you don't realize how much the landscape has changed until you find yourself unable to recognize the landmarks you once relied upon. The legal machinery is moving, and frankly, it isn't looking back.

It is either what it is, or it isn't. There is no middle ground, no gray area, and certainly no room for nuance when the facts are laid bare. It is a binary reality. Period.

It is just as corrupt as the individual in question.

It appears we have reached a point where one must wonder: does The Cabinet simply lack the basic competence required to respect the Law? 🤔 It is a fallacy to suggest that Andrej Plenković was responsible for drafting that specific regulation. In reality, he simply took advantage of the strategic lull while Congress was on recess. As for my own efforts, I am doing the absolute best I can under the circumstances; whether that result meets the highest possible standard is an entirely different matter, and frankly, it has very little to do with them.

People ought to be considering their fellow citizens and their fundamental rights, rather than obsessing solely over their own narrow professional interests.

Honestly, I don't really care if someone is from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, if that's what you're asking. Just because a bunch of people over there—as you've noticed—tend to play it safe and not rock the boat, especially during a crisis like this, doesn't mean they weren't right.

I don't know if you caught my drift, but I never claimed anything was unconstitutional. I said it was in that gray area where it isn't technically illegal, but it's definitely not quite by the book, and people have already called them out on it.

Anyway, regarding your previous post and this part:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a fundamental legal principle. You can't just claim you didn't know something wasn't prohibited or regulated by law.
Does that rule only apply to the common folk, while the people in power get to pick and choose when to follow it based on whatever suits them?

If everything had been handled correctly, wouldn't they have had to amend and supplement the law at least twice by now? All they did was add COVID-19 to the list of infectious diseases. And then they have the nerve to brag about how nobody can sue them now, acting all smug about it.

Joseph Taylor11 said:My bad... I accidentally deleted "the Constitution of the United States" while I was editing my post.

As for that second question—no, there aren't any outbreaks within the municipality or even in the surrounding areas. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single case reported in the township itself, though I can't say that with absolute certainty since they don't release those specific numbers to the public. That said, things are looking pretty solid across the entire county.
Since the mayor refused to sign that agreement with the other townships—the ones that actually wanted to let people move around without needing special permits—I can't help but wonder which way the wind is blowing.

Considering it's the Constitution, but also given how things are right now, I'm not so sure anymore. And if they leave you stuck in a place like Nashville, you'll be back to "making a scene" just to get someone to listen. 😁

I bet they won't even touch the travel restrictions between counties until after the Labor Day weekend. Honestly, I don't see them budging before then.

What's the deal right now? I missed the press conference. Did they scrap the travel permits in the counties, or are the local authorities still calling the shots for a bit?

Thanks