Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedivergirl
The driving analogy doesn't work. Driving is not a right. It is a privilege.
Can't smoke indoors doesn't work either. There is not a constitutional right to smoke anything.
The only one that works is yelling Fire! in a theater. First amendment.
I am surprised a constitutional law expert does not understand that.
|
Your understanding of the Constitution is very rudimentary.
Our government has the power to limit individuals' freedom under certain circumstances.
Citizens are not free to do whatever they want if government regulations or laws are put into place prohibiting such actions. (Hence, the few simplistic examples I cited - unlicensed driving; intoxication while driving a motor vehicle; smoking where prohibited; inciting unfounded fear and chaos; etc.) The Supreme Court of the United States has long upheld the principal that virtually no constitutional rights are absolute. Most fundamental constitutional rights are protected by the legal concept of
"strict scrutiny" but can also be regulated to achieve a
“compelling governmental interest.” In addition, the Supreme Court has also found that constitutional rights can be regulated for an even less pressing reason - demanding only a
“sufficiently important interest.” I have no doubt that a government regulation calling for masks would, at a minimum, meet the threshold of a "sufficiently important government interest".
I'd be happy to discuss the Constitution with you in greater detail.