Excellent post Oeb. I'm not a lawyer. And in the United States of America, our government is of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. We should subjugate ourselves to them and never question them. So probably I should keep my mouth shut, especially since I've never defended peoples' constitutional rights in a court of law.
However, I thought the passage about peyote (above) was enlightening. Was Justice Scalia right? You and I lean libertarian so might disagree. If people smoke peyote and it's part of their religion why stop them. They're not hurting other people. Anyway, given his thinking on peyote, you'd think Scalia wouldn't have a problem restricting religious services, if those services were conducted in a way that violates a law applied also to non-religious meetings and if those services expose society to the transmission of a life-threatening disease. Originally Posted by Tiny
Thank U Tiny - I agree.
While law and the legal profession is like the medical profession - in some ways - both require license to practice - and in medicine it generally is to protect the public. In law - IMHO - it is more a license to divert money into lawyer's pockets.
Medicine is not difficult, generally - just voluminous. same for law.
One can read the statutes and cases - it is not hard - and understand what our legislatures have inflicted upon us as citizens.
I would encourage those interested - go look up the legal area of interest - educate oneself. We still have the right to self-representation in a court of law. Medicine is a bit different - Treating Oneself - not generally a good idea. Operating on Oneself - really not a good idea ( It has been done). Docs have a saying - "The doc who treats himself/herself - or family- has an idiot for a patient."
As a strict Constructionist - I think Scalia would have held that restricting public gatherings - including religious services - is permissible in the event of a significant threat to the Public health posed by gatherings.