I am curious how legal it is for Oregon and Washington's Governors to limit the number of people who can gather.

Doesn't this violate our US Constitution?

I don't believe that our rights can be suspended if we aren't convicted felons.

If I am of able mind, body, and am willing to accept the risk of attending a gathering of 250 people or more that should be my choice.

I fully understand businesses closing if that is the wish of the business owner, and I understand events being cancelled if that is the wish of the company putting on the event.

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

This was my first thought as well.

Add Maryland to the list as of an hour ago.

I don't know what rights are being violated but I think the key phrases are "state of emergency" or "public health emergency." In any case, more and more events are going to be cancelled by their organizers.

State of Emergency

ianal but I'm sure there are provisions that apply to scenarios like this

it'll get worse before it gets better

--------------------------------------

It's getting to be a de-facto martial law.

The big 10 conference championship started and ended last night in Indianapolis. There was the yearly 8 day Flower and Patio show at the state fairgrounds that started this coming Saturday. The big 3 day Indy 1500 Gunshow was supposed to start tomorrow. Everything wiped away with the stroke of a pen. Man there's a lot of hits to the local economy

quote:

Originally posted by cyberiad:
I don't know what rights are being violated but I think the key phrases are "state of emergency" or "public health emergency." In any case, more and more events are going to be cancelled by their organizers.

Doesn't the First Amendment have a clause about "Freedom to Assemble"? Wasn't that included to help us maintain liberty and freedom?

And why declare a "State of Emergency" over a total of three or four people in Oregon being infected with a virus that is old (this is just a new strain).

My feeling is that this is not about keeping citizens safe or healthy, but is about control of citizenry. Our own Kate Brown has proven she is all about control; not what is good for the citizens of Oregon with her latest actions regarding carbon taxes.

I'd err on the side of caution - a state of emergency is usually limited in scope and time, so not a violation of rights. The courts would probably weigh in agreeing with this.

BTW, it is "martial", not "marshal"

Are many of these gatherings / meetings necessary for the world to go on? If you attended a basketball game, and found there were several people infected, mingled in the crowd, maybe next to you, would you be glad you attended?

I don't disagree, the right to assemble is in our bill of rights. But common sense should be added. Maybe the mass panic being promoted irks some, I can stay home away from crowds. Especially for something not crucial.

The ability of the state to restrict gathers and travel to stop pandemics predates the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
The ability of the state to restrict gathers and travel to stop pandemics predates the US.

Can you elaborate on that? Really curious, not debating.

The ability of the state to search your home without a warrant predates the US and the constitution as well.

Are these states just recommending canceling events and gathering or are they mandating with the force of law?

Heck Bama, they aren't even quarantining with force of law at this point.

Yet.

As noted in other thread once a city, etc. recommends and "requires" this paranoia over being sued or damage to image kicks in and ensures cancellation.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
Heck Bama, they aren't even quarantining with force of law at this point.

Yet.

I've been up to my eyeballs in work - some of it due to stupid pandemic planning - and haven't really been able to keep up with the news like I normally do. I see the headline blurbs scroll by on my phone, but that's about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunset_Va:
Are many of these gatherings / meetings necessary for the world to go on? If you attended a basketball game, and found there were several people infected, mingled in the crowd, maybe next to you, would you be glad you attended?

I don't disagree, the right to assemble is in our bill of rights. But common sense should be added. Maybe the mass panic being promoted irks some, I can stay home away from crowds. Especially for something not crucial.

I am not upset at a private entity or even a school district cancelling events. What bothers me is that in Oregon there is now a state mandate that prohibits gatherings of over 250 people. I can't find what the penalty is for ignoring this mandate. The mandate is supposed to only last for four weeks.

Not a constitutional scholar, but I think the Feds would defer to the states under the 10th Amendment, unless someone sued claiming a violation of their Constitutional right to assemble under the first Amendment was being infringed.

But, understand that our freedom of speech, protected by the same Amendment, is not absolute, either. "Can't yell 'Fire' in a theater," e.g. Whether a particular restriction of group meetings is permissible under the First might lead to a court battle to determine.

I think it also would depend on what the particular state's constitution/legal framework says. Something might be permissible under Federal law but violate a state's systems. Thankfully, I have no exposure to either Washington State or Oregon, so can't speak to that. Maybe these are quite legal under their laws, maybe they are stretching their authority.

quote:

If I am of able mind, body, and am willing to accept the risk of attending a gathering of 250 people or more that should be my choice.

With due respect, there would be 251 people involved in one person calling 250 other people to meet at a time of contagion, and it might be more than a little bit arrogant for the one person to put the 250 people at risk. Particularly when communications technology is as advanced as it is. The one calling that meeting could have their IT folks spend a half-hour and come up with a range of manageable alternatives.

quote:

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

Yes, possibly. Check your state constitutions against the governors' actions to be sure.

It goes back to Leviticus.

For the Feds: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine...antineisolation.html

Bucking common sense for the common good is along the lines of anti-vaxxer thinking, no?

I will admit to not liking crowds, and rarely attend any gatherings. But due to Governor Brown's recent actions I can see this is her attempt to keep groups who have publically and in great numbers from assembling in peaceful protest to her executive order regarding carbon tax.

I also agree it is common sense to not put oneself in harms way if one can avoid such a path.

I do not support these bans on assembly as of yet. Heck I can understand "State of Emergency" for a massive snow storm where roads are unsafe, and I can understand closing roads due to safety factors (happens here all the time in winter due to ice). I can even understand restricting assembly, but where did the number 250 come from as a group of 10 can be just as bad if one of the people has a virus (any virus) or communicable disease.

Note that many states will invoke additional restrictions on possession/carry of firearms during a "State of Emergency".....convenient no?