Weird. I'd have assumed that orders limiting core Constitutional rights would get strict scrutiny: the law has to serve a compelling interest (I'll give them this one in a pandemic), and must be narrowly tailored to serve its legitimate ends, using the least restrictive means possible.
the law has to serve a compelling interest (I'll give them this one in a pandemic)
I won't. Not in a pandemic with a mortality rate of 1% for under 65-ish and 5% for those of us older--and those rates are falling as more data are learned.
I'm unable to lay my finger on that clause of the Constitution that contains a caveat to our inalienable rights--or any of those illustrated in our Bill of Rights--where Government says, without irony, "King's X." Even that direct assault on individual liberty, suspension of habeas corpus, requires an already defined narrow set of conditions to be permissible.
2 comments:
Weird. I'd have assumed that orders limiting core Constitutional rights would get strict scrutiny: the law has to serve a compelling interest (I'll give them this one in a pandemic), and must be narrowly tailored to serve its legitimate ends, using the least restrictive means possible.
the law has to serve a compelling interest (I'll give them this one in a pandemic)
I won't. Not in a pandemic with a mortality rate of 1% for under 65-ish and 5% for those of us older--and those rates are falling as more data are learned.
I'm unable to lay my finger on that clause of the Constitution that contains a caveat to our inalienable rights--or any of those illustrated in our Bill of Rights--where Government says, without irony, "King's X." Even that direct assault on individual liberty, suspension of habeas corpus, requires an already defined narrow set of conditions to be permissible.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment