Indiana easing many coronavirus business restrictions

Its so nice of His Majesty to allow us such privileges...

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Thank you Gov. Holcomb for helping to get us back on track again.

These times have been difficult for our Governor. I'm thankful we are beginning to get things opened back up!

LOL - thanking Gov. Holcomb for his efforts is like...

...thanking Dr. Mengele for his contributions to science.

...thanking Dr. Frankenstein for helping to destroy the monster (that he created).

...thanking your kidnapper for not killing you.

...thanking your bully for stopping the abuse.

Please feel free to add your own!

Well I don’t mind if I do.

Thank you “free thinkers” for your limited understanding of the US Constitution, while at the same time selectively ignoring centuries of case law and legislation in your effort to overuse the term unconstitutional when applied to local, state, or federal governmental powers.

ERJVH,

Absolutely beautiful.

ERJVH - LOL. Of course you would get it all wrong. I should've written it in crayon for you...

You may willingly shackle yourself in the chains of unchecked gov't authoritarianism if you like.

I prefer liberty...you know, the kind this country was built upon.

You quarantine the sick. I understand that.

You don't quarantine the healthy.

You don't pick and choose (as a government) which businesses are "essential", helping some while killing others.

You don't (as governor) decree "protocols" for the citizenry that you yourself will not follow.

And neither case law precedent or legislation is infallible.

But since you wish to rely on case law, how about Marbury v. Madison: All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null & void.

Now, please point to me where in the US Constitution and/or the Indiana Constitution the State government, and specifically the Governor, has the authority that he has taken upon himself to decide such things.

I'll be sitting right over here waiting...

ERJVH - LOL. Of course you would get it all wrong. I should've written it in crayon for you...

You may willingly shackle yourself in the chains of unchecked gov't authoritarianism if you like.

I prefer liberty...you know, the kind this country was built upon.

You quarantine the sick. I understand that.

You don't quarantine the healthy.

You don't pick and choose (as a government) which businesses are "essential", helping some while killing others.

You don't (as governor) decree "protocols" for the citizenry that you yourself will not follow.

And neither case law precedent or legislation is infallible.

But since you wish to rely on case law, how about Marbury v. Madison: All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null & void.

Now, please point to me where in the US Constitution and/or the Indiana Constitution the State government, and specifically the Governor, has the authority that he has taken upon himself to decide such things.

I'll be sitting right over here waiting...

DPR,

Just so I'm keeping up.

It is constitutional allowed to quarantine the sick but not constitutional allowed to quarantine the healthy?

Because if not that would be the "Pick and Choose" that you just said you don't do.

I do agree with you on the Governor not following the "protocols" that he established but that makes him wrong/ignorant for not following them but doesn't make him wrong for establishing them.

RSOTS - Figures.

Sick people pose a health hazard to society at large. So yes they can/should be quarantined. You don't quarantine people who are NOT sick.

That is a completely separate point from having gov't "pick and choose" which businesses they (gov't) deem "essential" and how those businesses are to operate.

Even in Holcomb's ludicrous 5 phase plan certain businesses are still punished with limited opening and/or delayed opening while others have been open the whole time or can open earlier than others.

If people want to close their businesses, fine.

If people want to hide away in their houses, fine.

But there are many like me that don't believe the government has the authority to impinge upon my liberties just b/c some other people are scared.

Just watched Holcomb admit on TV that he is a fraud for telling Indiana citizens what to do but disregarding his own order concerning the wearing of face masks.

DPR:

A simple question, it won’t take much research. Where in the Constitution exactly is drunk driving addressed? It’s not, so why aren’t you running around protesting the “unconstitutional” detention and fine levying on drunk drivers?

And yes, Marbury vs Madison. Probably the most important case and decision in US Supreme Court history. It didn’t exactly do what you said. What this case and the decision did was set the Judicial Branch as the only branch of the 3 that could determine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of legislation and/or executive action. That’s going to be important later, as we banter about.

Dpr, just as i figured you would you chose to dodge the question so I'll ask again. Is one constitutional and the other one not? You should be able to answer very easily as you were pointing out how erjvh was wrong based off the constitution and powers of the government.

Or maybe you should learn the difference between facts and your opinion. I think that's where you get lost. You call others wrong based off of facts but then only support with your opinions.

It's awesome that you have your opinion and I appreciate them even if i don't agree with them. But at the end of the day it's just an opinion.

Wow, Mengele and Holcomb the same. That is a unique perspective and a hot take in today's world of hot takes!

I wonder if Eva Kor would have made the same analogy?

LOL - ERJVH and RSOTS think they are sooooo clever.

There are laws on the books, passed by the legislature, that says that driving drunk is a crime.

There is no law saying that the government can pick and choose which businesses will survive and which businesses will be destroyed by the will of the government.

There is no law saying that the governor can unilaterally decide what is essential and what isn't.

If you listen closely to what Mr. Holcomb has always said - they were guidelines... he recommends... etc. b/c he doesn't have the authority to do what he is doing.

But keep living on your knees, if you wish.

Dpr, you just wrote that Mr. Holcomb doesn't have the authority to recommend a guideline. You're getting sloppy.

DPR, you are selectively recognizing laws “on the books”. What about the National Emergencies Acts? There are State versions also. They have been enacted and reaffirmed by legislatures over decades. These legislative laws have been passed by the US Congress and State legislatures to yield extraordinary power to the Executive branch of both the Federal government and the State governors. Remember Marbury vs Madison? The Supreme Court has not called those unconstitutional, as of yet. So those laws are just as valid as drunk driving laws. For now. They are laws on the books. We can disagree if those laws are wise or not. Please don’t trash the constitution to fit a personal or political agenda.

Beg - Liar.

That is not what I said...but you already know that.

RSOTS - stop trying to be clever, it isn't working.

Holcomb started with guideline language b/c he knows he doesn't have the authority to actually force people to do these things.

He has since stepped over that line into an unconstitutional authoritarian approach that picks winners and losers in the business community.

If you wish to be a statist boot-licker, have at it.

But, like most people of your ilk, for some reason it isn't enough that you wish to give up your liberty for security and simply leave us freedom-minded people alone... you have to despise and attack anyone who thinks differently than you.

I pegged you early on (and called you on it) as someone who would turn in their grandmother. Better go check on your neighbors... someone is probably exhibiting too much freedom for your liking.

ERJVH - If you cannot understand the Constitution, the ideas of liberty, and the principles on which our country was founded I cannot help you.

DPR, the only help I am asking of you is to stop throwing the term unconstitutional around willynilly. You may not agree with the Governors actions. That is fine, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution. As I explained earlier, both Federal and State legislatures have ceded power to executive branches through passed legislation, sometimes but not always referred to as Emergency Powers Acts. This has been going on for decades. The US Supreme Court has not ruled these unconstitutional. Throwing your hands up and saying it’s unconstitutional only obfuscates the real issue here.

DPR,

I wasn't trying to be clever, I was just quoting what you said. If what you said wasn't clever well that's on you.

BTW, the definition of irony is you making the following statement "you have to despise and attack anyone who thinks differently than you.", in the same reply that you referenced me as a "statist boot-licker" for thinking differently than you.