Trump designates places of worship as essential and orders them to be opened immediately

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

a reply to: camain

You have the RIGHT to use paragraphs also.

COVID 19 is a public health concern not an issue of liberty of rights.

Quite simply COVID 19 don't give a rats arse as to your freedoms, all it wants to do is propagate and survive.

Open the churches at your own peril all Trump will end up with is the parishes in the same or similar state to the care home establishments.

Good luck and stay safe.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Just in time for Eid!

Party time at a mosque near you.

Eid Mubarak!

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Are you joking?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The President of the United States is not.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Are you joking?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The President of the United States is not.

I said COTUS (Constitution of the United States) NOT POTUS.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Are you joking?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The President of the United States is not.

I said COTUS (Constitution of the United States) NOT POTUS.

Indeed you did.

However, the topic is about the ridiculous claims made by POTUS not COTUS.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Are you joking?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The President of the United States is not.

I said COTUS (Constitution of the United States) NOT POTUS.

Indeed you did.

However, the topic is about the ridiculous claims made by POTUS not COTUS.

I am well aware of what the topic is and you know exactly why I responded to the previous member and you the way I did. Don't be obtuse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Was it an illegitimate expansion of Federal Power when troops were sent to escort the little black kids into the newly integrated schools?

Somehow, I'm pretty sure you won't think so.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Was it an illegitimate expansion of Federal Power when troops were sent to escort the little black kids into the newly integrated schools?

Somehow, I'm pretty sure you won't think so.

Is there a law that people have to go to church?

Because there was a law that school had to let those kids in ... and they refused.

Keep on with the false equivalency though.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Are you joking?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The President of the United States is not.

I said COTUS (Constitution of the United States) NOT POTUS.

Indeed you did.

However, the topic is about the ridiculous claims made by POTUS not COTUS.

I am well aware of what the topic is and you know exactly why I responded to the previous member and you the way I did. Don't be obtuse.

Stating directly the logical problem with your assertion is not obtuse.

Don't like being called out on fallacies, don't make them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Follow up question to you ... did Arkansas have the right to keep those children out of the school?

Also, can you show me the laws that are directed soley at churches denying access?

Becasue, as far as I know, generally speaking, these laws prevent large gatherings of any sort, not just religious ones.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

me thinks YOU NEED TO READ THE 10TH AMENDMENT

BECAUSE NO WHERE IN THAT DOES IT OVERRIDE THE OTHER 9 AMENDMENTS NOR ANY THAT COME AFTER IT.

In case you forgot FREEDOM OF RELIGION and to practice it or not is a GUARANTEED RIGHT .

so important the founders put it IN NUMBER ONE OF THE FIRST 10

tell me your just ideologically blind hate to trump and not really that willfully ignorant of what the bill of rights say

or worse not willing to look it up

scrounger

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

so by your claim when the government enforced against gov Wallace you were supporting him ?

you supported his RACIST blocking black children going to a white only PUBLIC school?

Unless you do (that alone would make you a racist tool) then your a HYPOCRITE that either hates trump or hates religion.

not so fun now when your own logic is applied to something else now is it

scrounger

2009-2017: The Tenth Amendment means the President can't dictate his will to the States.

2017-2020: The Constitution says the President can do anything he wants.

What changed?

The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman says that in order to be constitutional, a policy must:

Have a non-religious purpose;
Not end up promoting or favoring any set of religious beliefs; and
Not overly involve the government with religion.

usconstitution.net

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: trollz
I agree with this edict, but it should be extended to opening the country back up to business as usual. The governors had no constitutional authority to do what they did to start with, I don't care what their state constitution says.

Read the GD 10th Amendment.

I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The cotus supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States.

Are you joking?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The President of the United States is not.

I said COTUS (Constitution of the United States) NOT POTUS.

Indeed you did.

However, the topic is about the ridiculous claims made by POTUS not COTUS.

I am well aware of what the topic is and you know exactly why I responded to the previous member and you the way I did. Don't be obtuse.

Stating directly the logical problem with your assertion is not obtuse.

Don't like being called out on fallacies, don't make them.

Normally I would not take this discussion any further, but since you are not typically someone I have issues with, I went back through the discussion to see where things went awry. I'm still a bit confused by your original approach...
F4guy said
"Read the GD 10th Amendment. "
My reply was
"I have. Many times. Maybe you should read the GD constitution of the United States. Especially Article 6 Section 2. The COTUS supersedes state law. If it didn't, there would be no UNITED States."
This is how and where the constitution came into the discussion.
You said
"Are you joking?
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
The President of the United States is not. "
No where did I say the president was the supreme law of the land. I said the constitution supersedes state laws.
I replied
"I said COTUS (Constitution of the United States) NOT POTUS."
Thinking you might have misunderstood.
You replied
"Indeed you did.
However, the topic is about the ridiculous claims made by POTUS not COTUS."
Yes, the topic IS about the claims made by the president, but you replied to me using an exchange between myself and F4guy about the constitution leading to a convolution between you and I. In any case...
I replied
"I am well aware of what the topic is and you know exactly why I responded to the previous member and you the way I did. Don't be obtuse."
You replied
"Stating directly the logical problem with your assertion is not obtuse.
Don't like being called out on fallacies, don't make them."
So here we are. You have yet to show me a logical fallacy in any of my posts because I never said or implied what you accused me of.

a reply to: Klassified

Good summation.

All I can tell you is that the issue is with an overreaching President not the Constitution, or the Separation of powers between the State and Federal levels.

That is my point. It is not necessarily in opposition to your point.

Yes, the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" but only when and where it speaks.

I certainly mean no disrespect to you if that's how any of my posts sounded. While I took exception to your remark that my claim was "obtuse." I view our claims as tangentially related. The fallacy I referred to would be one of category/

a reply to: Gryphon66
Understood. I engaged my fingers before my brain. My apologies. I have never known you to be obtuse.

I think the reason I gave Trump a pass on this is because I felt his remarks were intentionally ludicrous to demonstrate the same and worse behavior from governors across the country. Maybe I'm giving him more credit than is due, but even Trump knows he can't dictate to the states. He has said as much. So I see his remarks as a mockery of those governors who have overstepped their constitutional authority and have acted like czars of their states.

I'm not saying it was the right way to handle it, but that's how I see it at this point.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If people want to go to church, they should be able to, you are not forced to go to church.

Same goes for businesses... well, everything.

No one is forced to leave their homes.

The world is officially insane.