When a law is unjust, and as yet unchallenged in the Federal courts, a president IS right to advocate for civil disobedience IMHO. And please note that there is a difference between criminal action, and disobedience to an Executive gubernatorial directive such as a "stay home" order....or a "close your business" order. We are civically bound to heed those laws which are not contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States...and to, within reason, resist those which ARE. The 2nd Amendment itself exists so that we may, ultimately, oppose laws that go against the spirit of the constitution.
I have not called you a liar...so no clue why you are asserting that you've not lied. I have called you out for repeating DNC/CNN talking points...and for helping the Left get out its message. And yes, I'm tired of it...this does not abrogate your right to continue pushing the DNC narrative. But you do NOT have the right to do so unchallenged.
The courts have not closed. The Supreme Court should be able to make a judgment on what is Constitutional in a pandemic.
Are ‘Stay At Home’ Orders Constitutional?
Evan GerstmannSenior Contributor
Education
I am a professor and publish on constitutional and educational issues.
As of today, over half the people in this country, across 17 states, are subject to “stay at home†orders. They vary considerably in terms of breadth and level of enforcement but, as a whole, they represent a breathtaking set of limitations on how Americans live their lives. Various state and local governments will likely order more, and perhaps even stricter, restrictions. But are such orders constitutional? The Constitution protects the right to associate, assemble, worship and travel. Does that mean there are limits on what sort of restrictions the government can place on people’s freedom of movement?
The answer is complicated and it is different for state and local governments than it is for the federal government. This piece will only address the state and local laws because there is no federal stay at home order yet. That could change, but for now, restrictions on leaving home, congregating in groups, and so forth, are happening on the state and local level.
There are plenty of laws on the books that allow for these orders. But even emergency and health-protective laws have to be constitutional. The constitution protects our liberty in good times and bad and it explicitly provides for only very limited emergency power. It only allows the suspension of the ordinary judicial process in the event of war, invasion, or rebellion. Furthermore, this authority is granted to Congress and not to the president (even if he calls himself a “wartime presidentâ€) or to state and local governments. So even during this crisis, the states must obey the ordinary constitutional restrictions on their powers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/03/25/are-stay-at-home-orders-constitutional/#b4ecd94104e1I highly disagree. The president should first go through the process of seeking the advice of Supreme Court. To advocate for Civil Disobedience when legal means have not been exhausted is stupidity. It pits people against their government and could lead to violence. It sets the President as the ultimate authority giving people the false idea that they can undermine their local governments. This is a pandemic and people really are dying. If Trump wants to help people to restore freedoms he should do it through the proper channels.
