Has allowing government “emergency powers” EVER been a good idea?
US judge denies bid to open California churches in pandemic
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10915790-181/us-judge-denies-bid-to?sba=AAS
By Don Thompson, 22 April 2020
SACRAMENTO — A federal judge on Wednesday said he will deny a bid by three Southern California churches to hold in-person church services during the pandemic, saying that government’s emergency powers trump what in normal times would be fundamental constitutional rights.
Newsom has no timeline for giving up those emergency powers. Just sayin’.
U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal in Los Angeles said he will reject the temporary restraining order the churches sought against Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials. They argued that the state’s stay-at-home orders violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and assembly.
Stanford Law, Obama appointee, proved his Socialist chops litigating in Los Angeles prior to nomination as a judge.
“During the state of emergency the executive powers are in effect, in that they are empowered to provide for emergency remedies which may infringe on fundamental constitutional rights,” Bernal said the the end of the hour-long hearing. He said he will soon issue a formal ruling.
If restrictions on government power can be removed if government singlehandedly issues a decree then it’s not a restriction on government power, now is it?
Many churches have been holding online services. California officials on Friday said religious organizations can have drive-in services so long as congregants don’t have personal contact.
That’s not enough for God. God requires Communion and meeting together. Only fraudulent pastors think drive-in theater or a youTube channel is sufficient for practicing Christianity.
This is not something that atheist government leaders are permitted to determine.
Attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a Republican Party official and chief executive of the nonprofit Center for American Liberty, argued that it is unfair for the state to allow people to attend to other needs that have been deemed essential, like going to the grocery store or picking up meals, while blocking religious services that she said for many believers are as important as eating.
But state Deputy Attorney General Todd Grabarsky said during the hearing held by teleconference that religious organizations are not being singled out by rules that similarly restrict gatherings at concerts, nightclubs, schools — even in-person court hearings.
Translation, “We categorized churches as nonessential instead of essential, therefore we get to shut them down in violation of the Constitution we swore to uphold.” And Judge Hay-Soos agreed.
Time to civily disobey and also time to start the Supreme Court lawsuit machine again.
“Has allowing government “emergency powers” EVER been a good idea?”
The answer to this one is painfully obvious. The problem, of course, is that, as Murray Rothbard observed, once you give the State any power at all, you give it ALL power. Thus the fundamental –and FATAL– flaw in the U.S. system of government is that the U.S. Constitution, as well as that of each of the states, confers the power and authority for determining the extent of the State’s powers and authority upon …**drum roll**… THE STATE. What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that? /sarc
By the way, one of the bitter fruits of the State being the arbiter of its own authority, fruit that we’re now all gagging on, is the fact that We The People, for all the collective firepower we own, cannot match the firepower concentrated exclusively in the hands of the State. This is the most obvious result of allowing it to be the exclusive interpreter of the limits of its own power, thus making resistance to its power problematic. Anyone who thinks this is “an unintended consequence” of constitutional law needs to read this.
Sounds like the writer of this piece has overlooked the passage of scripture thatsays “where two or three are gathered together in my name there will I be also”Yes, I too believe that we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together but at the same time I do not handle snakes nor drink poisonous waters to test that God in his mercy and grace will protect me from these things. Nor do I believe it is wise to be holding in person church services while a pandemic of still not quite understood knowledge rages around us. Having spent 42 years in public service as both a police and fireman In a major metropolitan area Iknow how fragile our healthcare system is and how easily it can be overwhelmed. If we insist on holding meetings that spread the contagion until it overwhelmes our healthcare system then many morepeople will die unnecessarily I do not believe that God wants people to die unnecessarily.I guess you could all me a Christian that attempts to use common sense. I am looking forward to once again being able to have fellowship with other Christian s
Welcome, David!
I didn’t say it was a bad idea to take precautions against disease. I said it was not the place of government to order us how we worship God. All of these protesting churches followed the same rules required of other essential businesses. What they didn’t do is follow the rules of non-essential businesses.
The plaintiffs are the same people that used “Separation of Church and State” to push Christ out of general society. Their motives are not benign.