Are Teachers Essential Workers?

What would happen if during the Covid 19 pandemic that truckers, grocery store employees, and health care providers said they were not going to work because it was too dangerous? The country would be in big trouble because they are essential workers to keep Americans fed and to provide the critical health care coverage to fight the pandemic and save lives. So, the question that begs to be asked is aren’t teachers also essential? My wife is a teacher and I have always stated that teachers are underpaid and underappreciated in our society. I say this because they are not only essential but because they are backbone of our society. Without good teachers society would collapse. In fact, they are more important than healthcare providers because there would be no healthcare providers without teachers and they are more important than grocery workers because good teachers are harder to find. My wife always told me that what caused her the most anxiety as a teacher was seeing any child falling behind. My wife taught first and second grade and she knew the more a child falls behind at that stage of their life the probability of them overcoming those deficiencies will be extremely difficult.

Teacher unions look out for teachers but they do so at the expense of children. The unions want schools closed until there are no more cases of Covid. That could take years because even if there are vaccines there could still be Covid cases. This is unreasonable. Will children and teachers get Covid if schools open? Yes, but the likelihood that any teachers or students die from the virus are very low. It certainly makes sense to protect students and teachers with preexisting conditions such as diabetes, old age, or heart disease.

There has been recent activity and protests concerned about injustices to black citizens. Well, the biggest injustice that can be made to black children is to close schools. Education is the biggest equalizing factor in society. However, urban schools are more likely to be shut down and that means black children will suffer and fall behind.

There were other hypocritical suggestions such as closing schools but opening child care facilities. This makes no sense, if day care facilities can open then so too can schools. Furthermore, teachers will not teach kids but they have no problem protesting outside of government buildings in close proximity with other protestors.

Teacher unions are not open to any negotiating such as having half of students show up on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and the other half on Tuesday and Thursday. This scheduled can be alternated every other week so each student has 5 days of in school learning every two weeks. This suggestion would allow students to social distance. My point is that there can be some negotiating to help move our educational system forward instead of leaving it stagnate and having children fall behind. Distance learning may help some, but it is no substitute for the real thing.

The BLM Movement Does not Make Sense

Yes, black lives matter as do all lives. But the BLM movement makes very little sense for a number of reasons:

First, the BLM movement only cares about those black lives lost to white persons and the police which is a very small portion of black lives. BLM does not care about the dozens of people killed each day to black crime.

Second, BLM protests that violate the rights of blacks or any citizen by disrupting their work or way of life does not care about those lives.

Third, I have written how erasing history is dangerous but the BLM movement is trashing monuments of abolitionist's such as Frederick Douglass. Furthermore, removing monuments of Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison also means erasing key documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1875, and the Emancipation Proclamation to name a few. These are the documents that ended slavery.

Fourth, in my book Defending Freedom of Contract I discuss how the Constitution is colorblind, gender blind, and their is no hierarchy of rights. All people are equal with equal fundamental rights. No race or group of persons should be given any preferential treatment for any reason. BLM wants special treatment for their race including restitution. However, Blacks and other groups have been given preferential treatment for decades in the form of affirmative action and diversity programs providing them with educational and employment opportunities at the expense of more qualified persons (not just Whites, it could also be Asians). This is wrong, race should not matter but it does.

In other words, BLM believes all injustice revolves around race and there is no other explanation or variables involved for injustices such as governmental policies that are at the root of all injustices.

I read a statement from the leader of BLM that stated "All lives cannot matter if black lives do not matter". That statement is a truism because the converse is also true if all lives matter than all black lives matter. This proves that BLM does not know what it is talking about and it does not make any sense.

I wrote in my book how "obtaining knowledge" is a fundamental right and All parents should have the right to contract with any school for their children's education. Instead of tearing down private educational opportunities we should be building up these opportunities. Competition to the failing government system is a good thing. Education is the great equalizer in life. This should be the focus instead of violating the rights of some at the expense of others.

Liberal Logic

One liberal family in our neighborhood likes to post signs with their beliefs. The latest sign said "In this house we believe black lives matter, women's reproductive rights are human rights, no human is illegal, science is real, be kind to everyone." What this family does not understand is that all the statements in their declaration are not equal. One refers to blacks only, another refers to women only, another refers to Hispanics, and the last one refers to everyone. If we need to be kind to all then shouldn't ALL lives matter? I am not sure what they mean by science is real. What strikes me as odd is that most people who make such a claim never did well in science, but they think they are experts on all matters science. I had a liberal tell me I do not believe science and technology because I do not own a smart phone. In other words, you are scientist, in their view, if you can text and take selfies. When I explained to the person that the science and technology was what is in the phone, they disagreed. So you are scientist if you can read a scientific article even if you do not understand all the research that went into writing the paper.

As far as reproductive rights there is no such thing in the constitution and even in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood the Court did not invent such a right. If you read my book human rights are fundamental rights and no fundamental right is controversial. In other words, everyone can agree with 100% certainty with all fundamental rights. Besides, the argument there is a war on women, in particular health rights is not correct. Women live 5 years longer than men and 2 times as much money is spent on research for women health then for men. In other words, there is skew towards more rights for women, in particular healthcare then there is for men.

I agree no person is illegal, and it would sure be nice to be able to take on the World's needy. But it is not practical. I suppose there are also no such thing as felons or criminals.

My Book For Charity

Hi Blog Readers,

I'm down to the wire and in urgency mode... as you know, I have written a book on How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better and am doing a campaign to attract readers and publishers...(which is now in the final 20 days).

The more books sold, the more publishers I will be pitched to... I'm shooting for 200 books sold. I'm at 27.

PLEASE (if you are able) click on this link and preorder a copy Thank you Patrick Bohan

https://www.publishizer.com/how-a-neurological-disorder-changed-my-life-for-the-better/

Remember, all profits will go to the Foundation for Peripheral Neuropathy. Thank you to all that have contributed.

How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better

I am proud to announce that pre-orders for my book are now available at:

https://publishizer.com/how-a-neurological-disorder-changed-my-life-for-the-better/

Single book sales are discounted at $20 and you can be kept updated with the progress of the book by subscribing to the above website.

I am also proud to announce that I am partnering with the charity The Foundation for Peripheral Neuropathy. All book profits will go to their cause. Their website can be found at:

https://www.foundationforpn.org/

Below is a link to a brief summary of “My Story” published by The Foundation for Peripheral Neuropathy:

https://www.foundationforpn.org/2020/07/20/patrick-bohan-my-story/?blm_aid=1058487299

The Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Foundation International is also publishing “My Story” at a later date and their website is at:

https://www.gbs-cidp.org/

I have Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (MMN) and that is a very rare subset of peripheral neuropathy and GBS and CIDP types of neuropathy.

These are very good causes and I hope you are willing to join me to fight these illnesses that inflict millions of Americans and people around the globe.

Erasing History means the History of Civil Rights Violations will Continue

Progressives want to erase history by tearing down and redacting any mention of any confederate or slave owner. Erasing history is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is a erasing the truth. How is this any different than the behavior of Holocaust deniers? Of course, any current person preaching these things would have been racist too if they were born in the Confederacy. None the less, erasing history is dangerous because history has a way of repeating itself. If you read my book (Defending Freedom of Contract), I do not like the term racism for a few reasons. First, it is referenced way too often as a rallying cry of the left. They label every person who disagrees with their ideas as a racist. Second, what matters is if someone's rights are violated then that wrong needs to be corrected. For instance, it does not matter that George Floyd is black what matters is that his rights were violated and that wrong needs to be corrected. It is a lot simply and less polarizing if we view the law through rights violations and not racism.

Just as George Floyd's civil rights were violated so too were hundreds of persons affected by violent protests including many that were killed, injured or lost their businesses. Furthermore, the civil rights of home and store owners in the occupied territory of CHOP or CHAZ are also having their rights violated. Since when can any persons occupy an area of the United States without a vote. We live in a Republic that has democratic principles and the action of ceasing property is a violation of anyone rights.

My point is this, what difference does it make if we erase history only to violate the rights of persons similarly to how rights were violated during the slavery and segregation eras? It does not and this is what I mean by history has a way of repeating itself. By eliminating history of rights violations we are opening a new era of rights violations. I be willing to bet defunding the Police will lead to thousands of rights violations where persons seeking help to protect their safety and rights will be ignored. As the WHO song goes, "Here's to the new boss, same as the old boss". Political correctness and black lives matter is nothing more than shifting rights violations onto police and other non-believers. Their behavior is no different than that of the slave owners they detest.

2020: The Year of Rights Violations

2020 is only about half way through but it will be known as the year of fundamental rights violations. Let me give you the premise of my book Defending Freedom of Contract. The Constitution protects the fundamental rights of everyone equally. In his lone dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson (the segregation case) Justice John Harlan said the Constitution is "color blind". Harlan's dissent is widely accepted as the law today. In fact, the Constitution is gender blind and socioeconomically blind. Thus, everyone is protected equally. What is a fundamental right. It is either enumerated or unenumerated rights that everyone can agree on with 100% certainty or they are undisputed. Thus, abortion is not a right because it is disputed. So what our rights? Here are some I outlined in my book: any lawful profession, to play, justice, life, liberty, freedom to contract, to travel, to own and sell property, marriage (including gay marriage), to pursuit happiness, to pursuit health, obtain knowledge, speech, religion, self defense, to vote, to safety, among the many.

Pursuit means we can pursuit these rights but they are not guaranteed. In fact, freedom of contract is powerful because it protects many of these rights and is redundant protection such as work contracts, property contracts, marriage contracts, travel contracts and so forth. Of course, many of the rights I mention are not found in Constitution such as the right to play, travel, obtain knowledge and so forth. However, these rights can be protected by the Constitution using either the Ninth Amendment or through the privileges and immunities or due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Self defense and safety are not listed, but I think that these fundamental rights that protects the Second Amendment.

The government does not create rights because rights existed before governments were formed. Instead, it is the function of government to protect the rights of American citizens equally unless there is some compelling reason to violate those rights. For instance, Covid 19 brings about a dilemma because the government may restrict the rights of some to protect the fundamental rights of others for safety concerns. That said, when implementing laws that violate the rights of some to protect the rights of others it must be done least restrictive manner and it must be consistent. In other words, the law cannot discriminate. For instance, Covid 19 guideline against religion are in most cases discriminatory because it does not treat the church similar to other businesses or practices. For these reasons, the government has been unnecessarily violating the rights of citizens all throughout the Covid 19 lockdown rules.

Of course George Floyd's rights were violated, but like the Covid 19 response, the response to Floyd's death has been violating the rights of thousands of Americans each night with unnecessary violence, travel disruptions, property violations, safety violations, justice violations, work violations, life violations and so forth. In the Covid 19 government response, they went overboard to violate the rights of citizens including meaningless things such as preventing persons from doing yard work. However, the government response to Floyd's death was the opposite and they did very little to protect citizens and their businesses from violence and destruction.

Understanding the Constitution and rights is not rocket science but we seem to violate these rights in the name of moral and social justice when no such thing exist. In fact, it makes little difference that George Floyd was black because regardless of his skin color his rights were violated and that injustice needs to be corrected. Until we start viewing events through rights violation then polarity and division will continue to exist. If everything is a social injustice and racism then the Constitution has no meaning and the country will spiral in anarchy and providing one group of people more rights than others. What is happening today is no different than injustices that happened due to slavery. How is targeting police and whites with violence any different than whites did blacks and men did to women in our early history? Violating rights is violating rights.

Stay at home orders Amicus Brief (Part V)

Hierarchy of Rights

Unfortunately, there are dozens of cases when SCOTUS gave more credence to some fundamental rights over others. For example, many cases dispute that rights found in the Bill of Rights are equal. For instance, one can surmise freedom of speech is a fundamental right everyone is born with. However, it is not as easy to argue that those procedural rights found in the Sixth Amendment (trial by jury, grand jury indictment, and 12 men unanimous jury) are fundamental. This observation may be true, but the government can create laws to protect fundamental rights such as a person’s fundamental right to justice or due process of the law. Hence, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are all equal and critical to protect. For example, in Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968), SCOTUS was correct to apply the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. It was not good enough to espouse whether or not someone MAY have received a fair trial. On the contrary, it is important that someone DID receive a fair trial!

On the other hand, SCOTUS was wrong when it decided in Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970) 12 men juries were not essential for human justice. The Court was also wrong in Apodaca v. Oregon 406 U.S. 404 (1972) to insist unanimous verdicts were not required to ensure human justice. Sure, procedurally someone MAY have received a fair trial, but without eliminating human and enforcement errors from the equation, it is impossible to say that a person, without any doubt, DID receive a fair trial and henceforth true justice. Williams and Apodaca created a method of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. These decisions are wrong because it creates a hierarchy of rights and clauses in the Constitution when none exists. Consider the headaches Williams and Apodaca produces, for instance, when SCOTUS decided in Ballew v. Georgia 435 U.S. 223 (1978) that five-man juries were too small. Why twelve, such a random number in Williams, but five is too small in Ballew? By straying from the original meaning of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments SCOTUS creates unnecessary conundrums, which allow for judges to input biases and opinions while denying fundamental rights.

In Prout v. Starr 188 U.S. 537 (1903) Justice George Shiras dispels the myth that clauses, amendments, and provisions found within the Constitution are not equal. Furthermore, if all provision are equal then it can be scientifically proven that all rights equal. Shiras wrote: The Constitution of the United States, with the several amendments thereof, must be regarded as one instrument, all of whose provisions are to be deemed of equal validity. It would, indeed, be most unfortunate if the immunity of the individual states from suits by citizens of other states, provided for in the 11th Amendment, were to be interpreted as nullifying those other provisions which confer power on Congress to regulate commerce among the several states, which forbid the states from entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, from passing any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or, without the consent of Congress, from laying any duty of tonnage, entering into any agreement or compact with other states, or from engaging in war, all of which provisions existed before the adoption of the 11th Amendment, which still exist, and which would be nullified and made of no effect if the judicial power of the United States could not be invoked to protect citizens affected by the passage of state laws disregarding these constitutional limitations. Much less can the Eleventh Amendment be successfully pleaded as an invincible barrier to judicial inquiry whether the salutary provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment have been disregarded by state enactments?

Placing Limitations on Rights

Many laws such as campaign finance and some abortion laws limit the free speech of some persons. For instance, laws restricting campaign contributions or restricting pro-life groups from protesting within so many feet from abortion clinic enterances. Although limitations are less intrusive, equal rights for all suggest everyone has the same opportunity to use their rights. Someone using their rights more than someone else does not equate to an injustice.

Conclusion

The findings in this brief are four-fold: First, since sovereignty resides with United States citizens fundamental rights cannot be abridged for any reason. Second, the list of both enumerated and unenumerated fundamental rights defined in early court cases and laws is vast. Unenumerated rights should be protected by the privileges and immunities or due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment. Third, denying or disparaging fundamental rights has been routinely accomplished in the name of national crisis using evasive methodology, rational basis scrutiny, and a hierarchy of rights. Fourth, the government wants to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens but at the same time other citizens are willing to risk their health and welfare in favor of other fundamental rights. Both sides have a valid argument. Hence, a temporary and less evasive limitation on rights would be a good compromise when faced with a national crisis. Moreover, those affected the most by Covid 19 pandemic (older retirees) and those citizens primarily affected by the economy (young workers) are for the most part mutually exclusive. Thus, it makes little sense to have mandatory stay-at-home orders for everyone. It would be much easier for governments to provide options to citizens so they can prioritize their rights. For instance, it should be possible for people to go to work or to visit a park but with reasonable restrictions or guidelines to protect the health and well being of other citizens. If, on the other hand, some citizens want to prioritize their health and safety, then they can choose to do so and stay at home. The bottom line, it is possible to find some middle ground to protect the rights of all equally. This is the best way to find balance to protect life and mitigate the disastrous effects the pandemic has had on the economy.

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part IV)

III. Denying Rights

Rational Basis Scrutiny

The assault on working rights was accomplished using rational basis scrutiny in a few important cases Nebbia v. New York 291 U.S. 502 (1934) and United States v. Carolene Products 304 U.S. 144 (1938). In Nebbia, SCOTUS held a New York law prohibiting the sale of a quart of milk for under nine cents was lawful.

The rational basis test introduced in Nebbia has been used by courts to decide cases up to the present time. Rational basis places the burden of proof on those fighting government regulation. In Nebbia, SCOTUS reasoned it was rational for states to create laws that were thought to be in good faith to protect its citizens during an economic crisis (the Great Depression). Courts using a rational basis test very rarely strike down any law or statute, even if they are unconstitutional.

Carolene Products was another blow to working and contract rights using rational basis scrutiny. In this case, SCOTUS upheld the Filled Milk Act, which prohibited Carolene Products from shipping its product via interstate commerce. Since filled milk cost three cents less per quart than milk, the milk lobby stopped a reputable company from pursuing its right to a lawful occupation and it denied customers the right to contract with Nebbia or Carolene Products to purchase their products.

Carolene Products is more famous for Justice Stone’s footnote four than its misguided decision. In footnote four, Justice Stone listed a few instances in which a state law may come under stricter scrutiny when determining its constitutionality. For instance, if any rights in the Bill of Rights are abridged then stricter scrutiny is needed to evaluate the state law. In addition, if a minority is disenfranchised then the law would face stricter scrutiny. Both Nebbia and Carolene Products proved that economic minorities did not matter since SCOTUS held that a mom and pop shop and a single company competing against the national dairy lobby held no minority status. What’s worse, footnote four protects only those rights found in the Bill of Rights, not those rights outlined by Justice McReynolds or Rufus Peckham opinions in Meyer or Allgeyer respectively. For instance, both McReynolds and Peckham argue there is a fundamental right to work a lawful occupation or to enter into contracts, but Justice Stone’s opinion holds the right to a lawful occupation or the right of contract can be abridged using a rational basis test because they are not in the Bill of Rights. Justice Stone created what Edward Keynes called a double standard of rights.

During the great depression in Wickard v. Filburn 319 U.S. 111 (1942) SCOTUS upheld the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938 denying a citizen to grow wheat in excess of what was allotted by the AAA even if it was to feed to his livestock and family. In Wickard, the Commerce Clause was given more priority than a man’s right to happiness, family, and work. In Williamson v. Lee Optical 348 U.S. 483 (1955), SCOTUS upheld an Oklahoma law prohibiting Lee Optical from doing what Lens Crafters does today using the rational basis test originating from Nebbia and Carolene Products.

National Crisis

One of the first cases involving a dispute over public health and citizen’s rights was the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873). In this case, both sides had legitimate narratives. The government wanted to protect citizens from cholera and other diseases from improper disposal of waste from butcher stores that was contaminating drinking water. To solve the problem the government created a butcher shop monopoly. Obviously, the majority of butcher shop owners objected because they lost their right to work a lawful job. SCOTUS incorrectly sided with the government because they lost sight of one key question: Was the government’s solution the least evasive in the face of a deadly cholera crisis? The answer was categorically no because the government could have protected the health and safety of citizens without denying citizens the right to work a lawful profession. For example, protecting public health could have been accomplished by making laws for butcher business to follow when disposing of animal byproducts.

Most disputes between government and citizens civil liberties arise from national emergencies such as Covid 19, war, and the great depression. In most disputes in times of national crisis it is common for government to restrict the fundamental rights of some citizens to protect the fundamental rights of welfare, health, and safety of other citizens. First Amendment rights were restricted in the Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 when the country faced potential war with France. Similarly, in Schenck v. United States 49 U.S. 47 (1919) First Amendment rights were restricted during World War I. In Schenck, SCOTUS upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 holding citizens could not oppose the military draft during a national crisis. In Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944), SCOTUS denied interned Japanese-Americans the right to due process during World War II. In Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), SCOTUS maintained that mandatory sterilization was legal. Buck was a drastic measure to protect the welfare and safety of “normal” citizens from “undesirable” citizens such as those diseased, deformed, or intellectually challenged.

Who is to blame for the Plight of Minorities?

There is no doubt that minorities, in particular African-Americans, have never been afforded the same opportunities as many other persons. So who is to blame for this plight of minorities? There is plenty of blame to go round and this is discussed in my book Defending Freedom of Contract. That said, in some cases minorities have actually been afforded better opportunities such as with diversity or affirmative action policies and One Person, One Vote policies.

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s over 22 million dollars has been spent on fighting poverty yet the number of impoverished remains unchanged. 22 trillion dollars should be enough lift millions out of poverty unfortunately over 70% of the money is used by the government to create government agencies to fight poverty and the money does not go to the people in need. The war on poverty and liberal policies have failed to change these demographics.

Education failures such as forced integration and Robin hood policies. Every person in the country should be allowed to go to the school of their choosing and not schools that government dictates for better integration results. Throwing money at failing schools never works because money is just one of thousands variables. More money but the same educators, curriculum, and administrators and the school will continue to fail.

The civil rights movement of the 60s and better voting rights led to a shift in minority representation in elected offices. However, blacks being represented by blacks did little change the structure of communities and opportunities for blacks. For instance, why are black schools run by black administrators and local officials failing many students. Why are liberal run cities by black officials have such high crime and poverty rates? Most crime against blacks is by blacks, not whites.

Social justice led by white people with guilt is not helping the situation. In fact, it is making things worse. Feeling sorry for someone and throwing money at a problem does very little to correct the problem. Guilt places all the blame on Whites and leaves no responsibility in the process to blacks to better help themselves.

It may surprise many, but since cases such as Baker v. Carr, there has been a shift in poverty and education according to the Department of Agriculture. In fact, more persons (higher percentage) live in poverty and lack education in rural America and not urban America. The reason for this is because urban areas have better representation in state governments and therefore receive a much higher percentage of tax revenues. Diversity policies are also part of the reason for trend to disenfranchise rural America.

Progressive welfare policies of placing Native Americans on reservations and keeping African-Americans segregated to urban areas has been detrimental. Welfare provides these individuals enough money to survive but to keep them impoverished. They have become reliant on government assistance and handouts. It is enough to win crooked politicians votes. Do progressives really want blacks to succeed. I do not think so because the more successful they become the less likely they are to support Democrats.

Sure racism exists and part of the problem. However, it is small part of the problem. As long as racism is to blame then the all the other reasons for the plight of minorities will be overlooked and ignored

What's Next After the Monuments are Gone?

Once liberals topple all the monuments and erase history, what is next? One thing that is apparent with liberals nothing is ever sufficient to satisfy them? For instance, ObamaCare was not sufficient, instead it was a stepping stone to government run healthcare. The tax rate is never high enough, they always want more of Americans hard earned cash. So there has to be more once the selective monuments are destroyed. Interestingly, the monuments of Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood) and Oliver Wendell Holmes (Supreme Court Justice) remain unharmed. Of course Sanger and Holmes are liberal heroes but were two of the most racist and bigoted people in American history who disliked African-Americans so much they approved of both abortion and sterilization to weed them out. Holmes also disliked women and their movement for equal rights.

If you destroy Thomas Jefferson monuments then it also makes sense to destroy the Declaration of Independence. If you destroy Washington and Madison monuments then it also makes sense to destroy the Constitution. Once that has been accomplished any mention of them and the Confederacy can be completely redacted in history books. In fact, after toppling Lincoln monuments the Civil War can be redacted from history. We can start American history fresh with a new anarchist government run by black lives matter and liberal anarchist. Police will be abolished and chaos will rule. Any naysayers will be political enemies and locked away. In other words, the same racism and discrimination that plagued African-Americans and women will be repeated on other groups of people.

Of course, destroying monuments, paintings, and writings is a violation of the First Amendment. What happened to free speech in America?

How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better

Pre-orders for my new book will be at www.publishizer.com from August 1 to August 31 and ALL proceeds will go to charity. There will be a lot of bonuses and free offers to pre-order books. I hope to complete the book by early next year. Below is information on the book:

How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better: The Science behind Nerve, Muscular, and Neuromuscular Disorders and their Effects on Cycling

I achieved athletic success with a debilitating neurological condition for three reasons. First, training techniques can alter muscle protein composition overcoming physical limitations. Second, training can bypass diseased cells by creating alternate neural pathways for the brain and muscles to communicate. Finally, improving personality traits such as resiliency, grit, and mental toughness can help overcome physical limitations such as pain.

Synopsis

The good news is people are living longer, the bad news is people are suffering from higher rates of morbidity. Further complicating matters is that the medical community treats the symptoms and not the illness allowing people to live longer but the quality of life is reduced. Most reasons for morbidity are because our genes are being exposed to environments that they never experienced during the evolution process such as certain prescription drugs, less sleep, alcohol uses, smoking, exposure to toxins, stress, new illnesses, and certain foods. The result is disease and, in many cases, autoimmune disorders. In fact, according to Daniel Lieberman there is a good chance you will die from a disease caused by genetic mismatches with environmental factors. To put matters in perspective, according to the CDC there are about 600 rare diseases and the prevalence rate all 600 diseases in the United States alone is over 10%. What's worse, if all diseases are taken into account about 25 to 33% of the United States is sick or will be sick in the next few years. That is extraordinary because many disorders can be avoided through a well-balanced diet and exercise. If you have been suffering from disease and illness such as chronic pain then may be interested in this book.

This book explains my story and philosophy to cope with two chronic debilitating neurological conditions while competing in cycling. What's more, after 13 years of testing and visiting 9 neurologist I have been misdiagnosed several times and they are still uncertain about my current diagnosis. Thus, it is possible that I have something that is completely unique and science has yet to catch up with my disorder. The important facets of my story are acceptance, advocacy, adaptation, and attitude (AAAA). Although Peripheral Nerve Hyper-excitation (PNH) and neuropathy disorders can be debilitating and wreak-havoc on the lives of those inflicted, it is still possible to have a productive, successful, and meaningful life. Furthermore, without practicing AAAA, instead of winning races I would be requiring assistance to walk and to do other everyday functions. Although gene expression and adaptation for exercise and diet are unique to each individual, 99.9% of all people obtain some benefits. This novel book educates the public about my experiences and what I learned from my medical and cycling journey about a plethora of subjects including anatomy, epidemiology, physiology, neuromuscular disease, environmental factors, pain, fear, stress, depression, acceptance, adaptation, mental toughness, competition, diet, and endurance training to name a few. The bottom line is that not only is vigorous exercise achievable but so too is athletic improvement and success in the presence of a debilitating neurological disorder. Furthermore, athletic achievement is possible in the absence of athletic genes.

My experience and research have enlightened me to blog about peripheral nerve hyper-excitation (PNH) disorders. My blog post “The Misconceptions of Benign Fasciculation Syndrome” has produced over 150 thousand reads. Other blog posts I have written on the subject have received thousands of reads. Several years back I also participated in a forum on paresthesia symptoms on a Huffington Post webcast. I am not a doctor and do not hold a PhD in any educational field (I have a B.S. in electrical engineering). None the less, I have had several doctors stricken with PNH reach out to me asking for my advice. For instance, I sent the section on “Fear” to one doctor suffering from PNH and he wrote me back saying “The Fear component of the book is fabulous”. My communication with patients, my independent research for this text, my blogs, and my survey have provided me a clearer picture of what is going on but I am certainly no expert (I may know more than most, but no one is an expert). At the same time, I can speculate with more certainty about what is going on with me. As far as expertise in cycling is concerned, I have been competing in cycling the past 7 years and have been on the podium in over 100 races including national and state titles in time trial events. Yes, I have many cycling achievements, but what makes these accomplishments unique is that they were attained while I was battling two debilitating neurological conditions that impair both strength and power.

About the author

I authored two books, Moneysense and Defending Freedom of Contract. MoneySense is a book on personal finance and Defending Freedom of Contract is a book on Constitutional Law.

I have seen 9 neurologists over the past 13 years and my diagnosis has change 4 times. Currently my diagnosis is both cramp fasciculation syndrome (CFS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) or multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). A definitive diagnosis has been difficult to pin point because my symptoms and diagnostic testing results do not fit any one disorder. My symptoms are vast and include motor, sensory, and autonomic nerves.

My neurological condition forced me to evolve to cycling 7 years ago after other activities were deemed a safety concern (rock climbing) or too painful (running). I participated in my first race at age 50 and have since won over 70 races and been on the podium over 100 times despite significant muscle power impairment.

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part III)

Argument

I. Sovereignty

Justice James Wilson wrote one of four brief Supreme Court majority opinions for Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793) citing it was the people of the United States that are the sovereign power, not the state or federal governments. Chisholm held that citizens had a right to sue state governments. Wilson’s opinion was joined by fellow Constitutional Conventionalist John Blair, Chief Justice John Jay (author of five Federalist Papers), and William Cushing. In fact, Wilson, Edmund Randolph, and Oliver Ellsworth were on the five-member committee responsible for drafting the Constitution. This committee took proposals from Constitutional Convention members and wrote document drafts, which were reviewed, debated, and edited by the entire convention. Without a doubt, these Founders understood the meaning of Constitution better than anyone in United States history. At the Pennsylvania ratifying convention Wilson proclaimed, “[I]mpartiality is the leading feature, there ought to be a tribunal in which both parties (state and citizen) stand on a just and equal footing.” Attorney General Edmund Randolph, who defended Chisholm, said although states are sovereigns, governments were created for the happiness of the people. Randolph understood protecting the rights of the people was the primary purpose of governments.

Some argue that the passage of the Eleventh Amendment made the holding in Chisholm moot. However, Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Fletcher v. Peck 10 U.S. 87 (1810) held suing state governments may no longer be in the Constitution, but Chisholm was correct and provided the proper meaning of the Constitution. In other words, the Eleventh Amendment does not change the meaning of the Constitution, it merely prohibits citizens (from different states) from suing states. Marshall’s exact words in Fletcher were,

The Constitution, as passed, gave the courts of the United States jurisdiction in suits brought against individual States. A State, then, which violated its own contract was suable in the courts of the United States for that violation. Would it have been a defense in such a suit that the State had passed a law absolving itself from the contract? It is scarcely to be conceived that such a defense could be set up. And yet, if a State is neither restrained by the general principles of our political institutions nor by the words of the Constitution from impairing the obligation of its own contracts, such a defense would be a valid one. This feature is no longer found in the Constitution, but it aids in the construction of those clauses with which it was originally associated.

Therefore, Marshall does not necessarily think Chisholm was completely repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment. In Marshall’s view, Chisholm was a sound decision whose principles still represent legitimate constitutional jurisprudence. Put another way, citizens are still sovereign within the structure of the Constitution and the Eleventh Amendment was not an open invitation for states to violate the rights of its citizens.

II. Rights

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Fourteenth Amendment provides, “No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Ninth Amendment provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

There are fundamental rights of individuals that government is to preserve at all cost. These rights, liberties, freedoms, and privileges and immunities are defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the Constitution (1789), the Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798), Corfield v. Coryell 6 Fed. Case 546 No. 3,230 C.C.E.D Pa (1823), Allgeyer v. Louisiana 165 U.S. 578 (1897), and Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Those privileges and immunities defined in the Fourteenth Amendment include the right to work, play, friendships (associations), marriage, health, life, safety, happiness, liberty, property, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature and arts, self-defense, self-preservation, religion, family, free speech, the right to vote, travel, and justice.

The Constitution protects several fundamental rights. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 and 3 provide:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The above procedural rights protect the fundamental right to justice. The writ of habeas corpus provides no one is jailed without receiving the full benefits of the judicial system; prohibiting ex post facto laws protects people from being jailed for retroactive laws; and prohibiting a bill of attainer law which would find persons guilty without a trial. The contract clause, defined in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is also a natural law fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of press, freedom of religion, gun rights for self-defense, and property rights. The other procedural clauses in the Bill of Rights protects everyone’s right to justice similar to those provisions discussed in the previous paragraph. In other words, these clauses protect our inalienable right to be presumed innocent of any crime. These clauses provide the fundamental right of justice through procedures such as a jury trial, a right to a unanimous verdict by a jury for conviction, a right to a speedy trial, a right to face the accuser, a right to no cruel and unusual punishment, a right to grand jury protections, a right to no illegal search and seizures, a right to no self-incrimination, and a right to an attorney.

In Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798), Chief Justice Samuel Chase defined some fundamental rights as:

A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B.: it is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers; and therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit of our state governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them.

In 1823, Circuit Judge Bushrod Washington wrote the opinion for Corfield v. Coryell 6 Fed. Case 546 No. 3,230 C.C.E.D Pa (1823) This court upheld a New Jersey law that prohibited non-residents from gathering oysters and clams from state waters. Washington refused to apply Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which states, “Citizens of the several states are allowed to participate in the all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular state.” Washington explained that Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution “did not guarantee equal access to all public benefits a state may choose to make available to its citizens.” Instead, Washington pointed out that Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution only “applied to those rights which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments.” Washington defined our rights in the Coryell decision as follows:

Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. Furthermore, Justice Washington opined that the privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of each state when in other states include: The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that people have the right:

To make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, two years later in 1868, was necessary to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 since many did not believe Congress had the power to pass civil rights legislation via the Constitution or the Thirteenth Amendment.

In Allgeyer v. Louisiana 165 U.S. 578 (1897), Justice Rufus Peckham held in a unanimous decision:

The ‘liberty’ mentioned in [the Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts, which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.

In Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923) Justice James McReynolds held:

Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The first three Articles of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (drafted before the Constitution) held:

Article 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

Article 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, for which the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person’s property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

Article 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

The Racism and Hypocrisy of CHAZ

The city, state, or nation of CHAZ is no different in terms of racism that it accuses our Founders and Police of being guilty of and it is certainly hypocritical in terms of its liberal agenda.

1. CHAZ wants to abolish the police yet it has a force of police armed with long guns and AR15s.

2. Liberals want to abolish the second amendment and ban all assault rifles yet CHAZ is loaded with AR15s.

3. Liberals claim walls are unconstitutional yet CHAZ has built walls and has border patrol.

4. Liberals and CHAZ claim our Founders and this country was founded on racist ideas yet how is the treatment of Police, media, store owners, and conservatives by CHAZ supporters any different than the racism against Blacks and women? Racism is racism. Violence and crime directed at any group of people is wrong.

5. CHAZ wants to be autonomic yet they want to raise taxes on the rest of society to pay for their autonomy of free housing and healthcare.

6. Liberals and CHAZ want to protect the planet yet the city of CHAZ is loaded with garbage, graffiti, and rancid smells of urine and defecation. 7. CHAZ wants to protect "undocumented" persons yet they will not let undesirables into CHAZ.

8. CHAZ is holding many persons hostage who are unable to leave and help is not allowed to get to them.

9. CHAZ wants autonomy but expects the outside world to assist them in matters of getting food, healthcare, and other assistance.

10. While the rest of the country faces Covid 19 restriction, CHAZ and other protesters and rioters are allowed to do what they want.

11. While the rest of the country faces criminal prosecution for committing crimes of looting, rioting, destruction of property, assault, carrying weapons without a permit, murder, and so forth, CHAZ is not held to the same standards.

Obviously, only certain black lives matter. George Floyd's life matters because it fits a liberal narrative. However, black police officers lives and black persons killed during the riots do not matter. The lives of black business owners destroyed by the riots do not matter. The hundreds of black persons murdered by black persons does not matter either. I do not understand it. Maybe the answer is to defund the police and maybe people will change their minds once more black lives are affected by crime. It is a sad state of affairs and I am struggling to comprehend what is going on. There is just so much unnecessary hatred and crime. The CHAZ movement is selfless, they offer nothing and expect everything in return.

How is Trump's Covid 19 Response?

Everyone has an opinion about the Trump response to Covid 19. I happen to believe what he has accomplished by removing regulations has been fairly impressive and I have been pleasantly surprised by his leadership. Trump's decision to ease restrictions was right and data is proving it. However, right now, polls have him well under water for his response and that is because a lot of people are without doubt suffering and feeling the effects of Covid 19. And part of the reason for this is because a large portion of the population still wants to air on caution and leave the economy closed. However, there needs to be some balance or we will fighting a recession for a decade and there will be lots more pain, suffering, and death from that. When asked, most people believe Biden is the best man to handle the Covid 19 situation. I find this very surprising since Biden is afraid to come out his own basement. In order to lead, the most effective way is to have in contact meetings, not zoom meetings. I believe this is the best way to keep Biden under lock and keep him from saying too much.

I look to one independent source to see how the President is doing and that is the stock market. The stock market is very finicky. That said, I believe it highly inflated at this point. But to remain at 25,000 in the face of a pandemic and record unemployment and small business closures tells me they believe in the President. Remember, when Trump took office many predicted the stock market would tank, but that was not even close to the truth. The opposite was true, we saw the greatest stock market run in its history increasing 70% in his first 3 years. The fact it still remains 50% above Obama years is quite telling.

What people need to remember is that Trump's economic issue is far different than the housing crisis Obama faced. Trump has to fight both a pandemic and mass fear as well as the economic situation. Obama only needed to focus on correcting the housing issue.

Democratic Hypocrisy over Protests and Riots is Insane

Democratic leaders are supporting protesters and rioters first amendment rights to assemble but they will give these same rights workers and religious followers. While it is okay to violate stay at home orders to protest and riot, it is not acceptable for workers and religious followers to congregate even when they follow social distance guidelines. Recently, the Supreme Court held that governments could restrict first amendment rights of religious workers even when the same standard was not applied to other activities and businesses. This is the definition of discrimination. The Constitution is about applying rights and laws to businesses and persons equally regardless of their demographics. Yet, time and time again this simple rule is not followed. You can read my book "Defending Freedom of Contract" to see egregious violations of the law.

I am sure no will hold Democrats accountable if protests results in more Covid 19 spreading. Nor will they be held accountable for their strict lockdown guidelines if there is no spike in cases from the protests proving that the lockdown orders were extreme. Either way, these inept leaders should be ridiculed and cannot win.

In 2019 10 unarmed blacks were killed by police and 20 unarmed whites were killed by police. In the 10 black cases, at least 5 the police officer was physically attacked. Charges against police officers were filed in 2 cases. The claims of racism and genocide are ridiculous. At the same time there were nearly 50 police officers murdered last year and much more than 10 have been killed by rioters. Sure people are allowed to protest, but I do not see the justification for protests and certainly not riots. The police officers in the George Floyd case were charged and hopefully sentenced to prison the rest of their lives. Justice is being served. But that is not enough to stop folks from destroying cities and the Democrats are allowing it. Heck, Biden and Obama surrogates are bailing out rioters that attacked people with Molotov cocktails so they can go back out on the street to do it again. Why? Because the unrest will bring down Trump. It is okay to support murderers for political gain.

One thing that is not getting much mention is that George Floyd tested positive for Covid 19. Apparently he was asymptomatic. But he was not wearing a mask. Do not get me wrong, Floyd was unnecessarily murdered. That said, Floyd was putting hundreds at risk with his behavior and he too may have unnecessarily killed other people by spreading Covid 19. Why are Democratic leaders up in arms about this callous behavior?

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part II)

Introduction

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a republic, sovereignty rests with the citizens and not with state or federal governments. As such, it is not the duty of government to protect the rights of a majority, but to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens equally. After all, majorities are often wrong such as in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (slavery), Bradwell v. Illinois 83 U.S. 130 (1873) (deny women’s rights), and Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (segregation). A fundamental right is self-evident to all or one that there is no disputing. Fundamental rights may be both enumerated or unenumerated and include the right to work, play, friendships (associations), marriage, health, life, property, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature and arts, self-defense, self-preservation, religion, family, free speech, the right to vote, travel, and justice.

Covid 19 brought about unique circumstances causing strict government stay-at-home orders leading to the loss of many of the fundamental rights listed above including the right to work, play, friendships, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature, and travel. Conversely, government restrictions during the Covid 19 crisis may also be viewed as protecting citizen’s rights to life and health. What is compounding the conflict between government and citizens is that the priority of fundamental rights among citizens is vastly different. While some may view their health and life as the most important rights, others may view family, religion, education, and work more important. After all, life without other rights is meaningless. What’s more, the prioritization of rights among citizens can change depending on the circumstances. For instance, does religion take precedence over work on days other than Sunday? Does religion take precedence over playing with one’s kids all the time? Does religion take precedence over one’s health all the time? Of course not, hence individual priorities are always in flux. The government historically can deny rights in four ways. First, they may deny rights because of a national emergency or crisis. Second, they may deny unenumerated rights using rational basis scrutiny. Third, they may deny rights because they regard some rights in a higher standing than other rights. In other words, by creating a hierarchy of rights. Finally, they may deny rights because they place limitations on fundamental rights.

That said, government has the right to deny fundamental rights if two predicates are met:

1. Government must have a compelling reason such as to protect the health and safety of citizens from Covid 19. Thus, the government meets this requirement.

2. The government must use the least evasive method to achieve its objective. This requirement has not been met. Part of the reason why governments fail to adhere to consequentialism doctrines such as “do the ends justify the means” and “the least evasive method to achieve its objective” is because they are impossible to measure since they are defined vastly different depending on the person. Furthermore, consequentialism documents are easy to manipulate depending on biases, opinions, and agendas of legislators.

Thus, usually the government only has to meet point 1 above to deny rights because point 2 is arbitrary. Hence, a better guideline or requirement is needed to protect the rights of individuals. This brief tries to define a better mechanism for protecting rights in four steps. First, rights need to be protected because sovereignty lies with the citizen. Second, to better define unenumerated and enumerated fundamental rights that require protection at all cost. Third, to demonstrate why government laws seldom use the least evasive method to deny rights. Finally, to make suggestions that would be beneficial to protect both government and citizen objectives.

When Do Protests Go to Far?

It has been a sad few months in America for many reasons. First, Covid 19 has led to state government power grabs that just go to far and needlessly violate the rights of citizens. Second, the George Floyd case is extremely disturbing. Yes, these police officers need to be arrested and locked away for the rest of their lives. Under no circumstance should a man that is not resisting and is already been cuffed be physically restrained. However, I disagree with the many people that are trying to compare the Floyd case to other recent altercations between the police and the black community. They are all different and in many of those cases the police acted appropriately. Not all cases are the same. Third, the protests resulting from the incident are very disturbing that include looting, rioting, and burning down businesses and homes. Obviously these protests are violating the rights of innocent Americans and serve no practical purpose.

When do protests violate rights of other citizens? Even if a protest is peacefully blocking traffic without any prior authority to do so is a violation of people's right to travel freely in public spaces. If protests are peaceful but they leave behind a mess of trash, it violates the rights of some people. To properly protest people must have permission or they must not interfere with other citizens rights to move or conduct business. Besides, this is the best way to make a point. George Floyd's death will be in vain because the protesters actions are no better than the police. It is a sad day for America because instead of solving a problem we are simply making it worse.

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part I)

Outlined in a five part series is a hypothetical amicus brief I wrote about government stay-at-home-order response to Covid 19. An amicus brief is a third party opinion or point of view to a federal case. Obviously, I would take more care editing and with grammar if I submitted this to a Court. Unfortunately, I do not have the qualifications and financial resources to submit this Michigan or some other state hearing opinions about stay-at-home-orders.

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Cases

Statutes

Interest of Amici Curiae

Introduction

Argument

Sovereignty

Rights

Denying Rights

Rational Basis Scrutiny

National Crisis

Hierarchy of Rights

Placing Limitations on Rights

Conclusion

Form and Length Certification

Certification Regarding and Electronic Brief

Certificate of Service

Table of Authorities

I. Cases

Allgeyer v. Louisiana 165 U.S. 578 (1897)

Apodaca v. Oregon 406 U.S. 404 (1972)

Ballew v. Georgia 435 U.S. 223 (1978)

Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873)

Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798)

Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

Corfield v. Coryell 6 Fed. Case 546 No. 3,230 C.C.E.D Pa (1823)

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

Fletcher v. Peck 10 U.S. 87 (1810)

Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Nebbia v. New York 291 U.S. 502 (1934)

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Prout v. Starr 188 U.S. 537 (1903)

Schenck v. United States, 49 U.S. 47 (1917)

The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)

United States v. Carolene Products 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

Wickard v. Filburn 319 U.S. 111 (1942)

Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970)

Williamson v. Lee Optical 348 U.S. 483 (1955)

II. Statutes

Alien and Sedition Act (1798)

Agriculture Adjustment Act (1938)

Espionage Act of 1917

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

The Filled Milk Act

Interest of Amici Curiae

Amicus Patrick Bohan is a private citizen with no ties to any parties involved in the case. Patrick has received no funding and has no conflicting interests. Patrick’s objective is to try to find a workable solution or compromise between the Covid 19 government response and the civil liberties of United States citizens. Patrick calls his initiative the Covid 19 Coalition for Life and a Robust Economy. The principles outlined in this brief are found in Patrick’s book “Defending Freedom of Contract: Constitutional Solutions to Resolve the Growing Political Divide”.

Covid: Anatomy of a War Like no Other

War is actually defined as a conflict between states or nations. So, is the battle over the Covid 19 virus really a war? I believe so because there is also recent information showing that China was callous and may have even intentionally allowed citizens to travel to other countries when they were restricting any movement within the nation. Hence, there may be a enemy, and it is China. That said, this war is unlike any we have ever seen for many reasons:

This war may kill more citizens than died in Vietnam, but unlike most wars, it is solely taking place on our home soil.

Like other wars, Covid has also seen a full blown military response to the pandemic. However, unlike other wars, the duties of war have changed, but nonetheless there is a full military presence.

Covid kills innocent civilians and unlike wars, it kills elderly persons who would never see a battle field. Actually, the strategy of killing older and more mature people is sound principle because it leaves younger and immature people in charge. Most battlefield strategies focus on killing the leaders in order to form chaos.

Covid has destroyed our economy, unlike any war. In fact, some wars have been great for the economy such as WWII. When Covid is over there will be a 40% retraction of the economy, which is bigger than the great depression. The government is responding with trillions in bailouts. I disagree with bailouts, especially for those who may have previously been callous with their finances. For that reason, I prefer loans to bailouts.

Covid has had a unique response on the federal government: deregulation and decentralization. I know some consider Trump a dictator and tyrant, but the federal government has only issued guidelines and allowed states to implement those guidelines as they see fit. In fact, the dictators and tyrants have become the governors and mayors, not the federal government. The federal government is designed to have fast responses to crisis for one primary reason: regulation. Trump has cut hundreds of regulations in the FDA alone to get tests and drugs approved. Something that would normally take years has been cut to days, weeks, or months. Most wars and crisis shift more power to the federal government at the expense of the states. This is true throughout history, especially in the FDR years of the great depression and WWII. Sure, Trump has the War Times Act to force businesses to make war time products, but he never had to use it since businesses where willing to shift gears. The commerce clause provides the federal government complete authority over the economy (this is wrong, but it is true), but we are not seeing that type of authority being used in the Covid crisis.

There is commonality that can be found in modern wars that was not found in wars through Korea: Protests. Protests originate because persons are fighting for individual rights over nationalism and the greater good of the nation. Protesting the draft in Vietnam had a legitimate argument based on the 13th Amendment. Protesting the right to work, travel, enjoy family and friends, and so forth in the Covid epidemic also has a legitimate basis found in the 9th Amendment. On the other hand, under dire circumstances rights of some may be curbed to protect the health and safety of others. For this reason, modern protests may be viewed as selfish, but is being selfish when your livelihood has been completely taken away?

Covid has created a fear factor that is unprecedented. I am sure people were fearful during WWII, especially in England or in occupied Europe. But I am certain governments and citizens were trying to help each other. The Covid war sees people buying out grocery stores, putting out signs on doors "no visitors", citizens being fearful even when not in the presence of another person, government asking for citizens to report their neighbors, government tracking the phones of citizens, and government tracking citizens with drones. Even citizens first amendment freedoms are being silenced if they are different than the views of the government on social media sites. This is scary stuff. Fear brings about irrational behavior and problem solving.

The Ultimate Sacrifice

I am really starting to believe that the economic shutdown cost will far exceed the cost in lives saved. First, there is no definitive proof that social distancing and the lock-down procedures work to eliminate death. In one Israeli study on the subject of over 50 nations, Covid 19 follows a definitive pattern regardless of the precautions taken by the nation meaning nations with running economies are showing no increased infection or death rates. Second, the U.S. government will more than likely print out more than 6 trillion dollars. That is equivalent to 30% of our economy and should theoretically keep the economy a float for 4 months, but it has tanked in one month after economic closures. For this reason, I dislike bailouts because they are not serving their purpose with unemployment surging to 20%. Sure, this bailout is a bit different than Obama's stimulus that rewarded companies that were complicit in the economic collapse. In 2020, the companies and people being helped were not complicit in the economic collapse. I prefer loans to bailouts, especially to larger companies. I think they should pay back loans at an interest rate.

Third, this feels like a war, it seems like we are under a partial Marshall Law and the death rate will exceed those killed in Vietnam. It feels like the enemy is not just the Virus, but China and the WHO. Earlier this week, China increased its death count from the virus by one-third. This is not even close to being factual, but it proves they have a math problem after seeing what Covid has done to dozens of other countries. However, this war is different from other wars in that we shut down the economy, and all the death is from innocent civilians. Unfortunately, with war comes the ultimate sacrifice - death. I do not want to die, but if I were to die to help keep the economy a float then that has some value. On the other hand, all the death that is happening now is in vein because we are losing the war with an economic collapse. In war, soldiers die so others can enjoy the freedoms of living in a free state. Right now, people are dying and we are losing all our freedoms at the same time. No one wants to die, but we all die at some point. The ultimate sacrifice is to die so others can enjoy their freedoms. That is how we justify all those deaths in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. I always wondered how soldiers were so brave and did not seem afraid to die. I always figured I would be a coward on the battle field. I remember watching "Band of Brothers" and one brave Captain named Spears. In one battle Spears was trying to figure out were another U.S. division was during the battle. To do so, Spears, by himself, ran across an open field 100 yards and then directly through the German line. Both sides stopped fighting because no one could believe a man would be so stupid to do such a thing. After Spears found the other division, he ran back! In another episode Spears told a scared soldier until you realize you are already dead, you will be scared of dying. In other words, Spears came to grips with his mortality to deal with his dire situation. Similarly, I have come to grips with my own mortality over the past 12 or 13 years. When you learn you have lived with a deficient immune system your entire life and then have to battle neurological and muscular disease you start to understand that you may die young and or end up disabled. At first, it is scary but over time you learn to deal with it. It is not easy to come to grips with our mortality. But the ultimate sacrifice is die so others can enjoy the freedoms we have fought to protect. The freedom to worship, work, enjoy family and friendships, the right to travel, the right to play, the right to enter into contracts with businesses, and so forth. We take these freedoms for granted, but this is the first war where we have lost these freedoms. If death does not come from the virus, it will come to others via suicide, addictions, and other means with a depressed economy. This war will come at a loss of freedoms which is like dying and being born in a socialist state or dictatorship.

If this is the new normal, to live in fear and have the government destroy our personal liberties, I know I do not want to be part of it. I realized a long time ago, I won the lottery when I born in the United States. I was lucky to have the opportunities I was afforded. This new normal does not feel that way. To live in fear, to screw our neighbors by hording food, to loose our freedoms. Maybe it is temporary until a new vaccine comes around, but I am not convinced the new normal means less freedom in the future. The virus is winning this war and we all will pay dearly for it.

What Say Governor Cuomo?

NY Governor Cuomo is the new Democrat darling and many want him to be the nominee to go up against Trump. So what does Cuomo have to say about Trump and his handling of the coronavirus? The following is a mid April conference from Cuomo and why Trump held back some assistance to New York.

"I've worked very hard with the President of the United States," Gov. Cuomo said during a coronavirus briefing on Saturday. "We've had our political differences in the past, no doubt, but there's also no doubt that I've worked hand and glove with the president here and he has been responsive to New York and responsive to New York's needs, and he's done it quickly and he's done it efficiently."

The governor also marveled at the president's decisiveness and how quickly the president was able to respond to meet the needs of New Yorkers.

"I've literally had conversations with him in the morning where he turned around a decision by that afternoon," the governor said admiringly. "I've been in the federal government. I know what it's like to make a decision, and he has really responded to New York's needs."

President Trump was initially criticized for pushing back on Gov. Cuomo's projection that New York would need some 40,000 ventilators and more than 140,000 hospital beds at the peak of the state's outbreak.

"I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they’re going to be," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity back in March.

Now, new models from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation confirm the president's suspicion, showing New York already reached its peak on April 8 as to the maximum number of ventilators and hospital beds the state would need to treat patients. Instead of 140,000 hospital beds, fewer than 23,000 were actually needed. Instead of 40,000 ventilators, a projected 5,008 were needed.

Covid 19 Data Anomalies

I am a math guy and love data. I review Covid 19 data every day looking for anomalies. For instance, it is not very difficult to determine that countries such as China and Iran are not being truthful about their reporting. But the most interesting country to pay attention to is Japan because they have a very low death rate. The reason for this needs to be understood, but it is unsurprising that the Japanese have the highest life expediencies than any other country in the world. Of course, Italians have a high life expectancy but their mortality rate from Covid 19 was the highest in the world. Both Italy and Japan also have very high median ages which would suggest that both should have a very high death rate since Covid 19 adversely affects the older population.

In the United States, only one state with more than 500 cases has a death rate under 1% and it did not surprise me in the least. Utah has a death rate of about 0.8% and the reason for this is simple. Mormons are the healthiest white population in the country living anywhere from 5 to 10 years longer than the rest of the white population in the United States. Utah is 62% Mormon and those strict practicing Mormons do not drink alcohol, smoke, drink coffee, and generally eat very healthy diets. Thus, it is easy to assume they have stronger immune systems than the average person. This is why men have a higher mortality than women from Covid 19. Women have the stronger immune systems than men and this is why women are more susceptible to autoimmune disease.

Another anomaly is that the death rate is much higher in areas with more cases. This has to be analyzed because this may be corrected if it is because hospitals and staff and be overloaded.

The biggest anomaly that has to be looked at is why Covid 19 virus spread follows a very predictable pattern in every country including those with strict quarantine and those that are moving forward without any restrictions. This pattern was found in one Israeli paper, but he no explanation for the virus's behavior suggesting it could be related to the weather or it could be a unique characteristic of the virus.

Of course, everyone wants to make a big deal about how Covid 19 is killing more minorities. This is true, but it is not an anomaly because there are more cases in cities that are populated by minorities and because elderly minorities have lots of preexisting conditions that will make them more susceptible to die. This situation is not because of Trump, but because United States policies of government handouts has not only led to the segregation of minorities in cities (and Native Americans on reservations), but it leaves them poor with no prospects of finding work. This problem will unfortunately persist, especially as conservative and liberals both move further left to socialism. Liberals like to point to Jim Crow laws and slavery for the issue, but the truth is that no one alive today was directly effected by those atrocious laws. Maybe that is part of the decline of the African-American health system, but modern laws must be having a greater impact.

Hate is Hate

Hate is strong word. There are no levels of hate, to hate for any reason is wrong. Hate is commonly used to describe opposition to a rival team or player and even that type of hate is wrong. People should respect rivals not hate them. After all, with out rivalries sports and athletics would be boring. Rivalries are what sells tickets and make headlines. If you can find it your heart to hate a player because he goes to wrong school or plays for the wrong team then you can find it your heart to hate anyone for any reason.

I have been accused of hating Obama. I never said or would I ever say I hated Obama. Obama seems like a nice guy and great father. I have no reason to hate him, but I disagreed with him very strongly on his policies. These are not same things. To hate someone because of political ideas and ideals is no different than hating someone because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation. Hate is hate and it is wrong.

Recently, Dennis Quaid was criticized on Twitter by thousands saying very hateful things and actually saying they hate him for saying he though President Trump was doing a good job in the Covid 19 response. People are calling for a boycott of his movies simply because of a political view. This is why I say those people who "hate" Trump are acting no differently than of the behavior they accuse Trump. Hating is wrong. This behavior is ludicrous. I do not agree with many Hollywood stars political beliefs but I do not hate them and wish ill will on them. I would not even consider to boycott a movie they are in. It is just petty, trivial, and shallow. A political ideology does not necessary define a person's character or persona. That sad thing is that both sides just fail to realize that other side wants to improve America, but they have a different philosophy about doing it. That is it.

Of course, there are extreme circumstances where hateful feelings may be hard to control such as towards some that may have committed a crime against a family member. Sure, forgiveness someone for such heinous acts would be difficult, but it should certainly be the goal of afflicted persons to try to make peace with what transpired. I can certainly understand hateful feelings in these circumstances, but it is certainly very hard to justify for political ideals, sports rivals, or other tedious things. To hold a ballplayer or a political rival in the same light as someone that harmed a family member is obscene and why hate is such a strong word and should not be used.

One would think during these dark hours of Covid 19 folks could put their political ideology aside for the betterment of America.

The Left is being Disingenuous about the Pandemic

I am using the word disingenuous because I do not want to call anyone but liar, but I am seeing articles and hearing from friends that the "anybody could have seen the pandemic coming". Thus, they are saying Trump did not act fast enough. Obviously we should have acted faster knowing what we know now, but the question is did Trump have the right information to act sooner? I do not think he did. It was not until January 30th that China and the WHO admitted that they had a pandemic that could be spread person to person. Despite that the WHO still said any travel bans are not necessary. Although it was not official Trump had already put together a Covid 19 task force with experts like Foucci who were recommending against any action at that time. Despite the WHO report and recommendations from the task force, the next day Trump initiated his first travel ban on China and later against Europe. Of course, everyone who claims to have seen the pandemic coming resorted to identity politics calling Trump a racist for his travel bans. In the preceding weeks Pelosi, Cuomo, and deBlasio were in China towns asking more people to join them and resist the xenophobia of the President. As soon as Foucci and Birx recommended lockdowns and social distancing the President acted the next day. Five to six weeks following the first travel ban and weeks after the first state lockdown orders, Cuomo and deBlasio were still saying this crisis would not be bigger than China and they had the best healthcare system in the world in NY to deal with. Three weeks later, Trump had tripled the capacity of New York hospitals including beds, equipment, and healthcare workers. Nine weeks after the first travel ban, Biden said Trump was right, but by that time this pandemic would have killed millions. How do I know this? I have seen the data. We need to look no further than ski resorts to see the effects of travel on these areas. The prevalence rate in these areas was astronomical and that includes only the people that live their year round, not those who got sick and went home to spread the virus.

Why do I know everyone who said they saw this coming is not being truthful. Easy, look at the markets. The markets responded as Trump responded. Most Financial companies have offices in China and Asia but yet they did not react first and markets are very finicky. People should have been making out like bandits if they could foresee the future and few did like Senators Burr, Loefler, and Feinstein. That is because they were getting insider information days before Trump would act but it was only then the markets responded.

I live in a small town and county. My state was one of the first to order a lockdown and our county had no cases but decided to follow suit. Nine days after the lockdown we got our first case and despite being locked down for over 30 days our cases continue to rise. Our county prevalence rate is well above the national average for cases and mortality rate. I thought for sure the early lockdown by Colorado and our county would have prevented what has happened, but I was wrong. But, of course, there are few no it alls that saw exactly what was going to happen, but yet complain about being hammered by the market. If they knew, why didn't they sell? Simple, they are not being truthful.

In hindsight we should have acted faster, but you can only respond to the data you are given. People should not be angry at Trump, but should be united with their anger pointed at the WHO and China. I think deep down the Left knows Trump responded properly that is why they are trying to drive a wedge between him the Convid task force members, governors, and mayors. That is why there were at least 20 articles this week on hydroxychloriquine including many saying Trump is profiting without any proof. I would simply ask those people who write such articles to visit an infusion clinic in a hospital to watch people battle cancer and disease that are going through incredible pain and only hoping to find some cure. To find hope. These people writing these articles and making these claims have never been really sick. What Trump has done should be applauded. To make a last ditch drug available for Covid use is brilliant. He is right, we got nothing to lose and as a person who sits in infusion clinics and prays for other possibilities to make me and the others feel better, I thank him. If it saves one life it was worth it. I just do not understand the Left, Trump is not doing enough and whatever he does do has to be wrong. I want Trump on my side, not any of those media morons like Jim Acosta.

Yes, we missed the boat big time on testing and we are still not were we need to be. But to get there thousands of regulations, rules, and mandates have to be suspended and removed. The government has the power to accomplish the testing task, but it is too big with too much red tape to act efficiently. Trump will work through and get it done, and he will do it faster than liberal who would not want to act in fear of offending someone because of identity politics.

2020 NFL Mock Draft

1. Cincinnati: Joe Burrow, QB, LSU

2. Washington: Chase Young, DE, Ohio State

3. Detroit: Jeffrey Okudah, CB, Ohio State

4. N.Y. Giants: Isaiah Simmons, LB, Clemson

5. Miami: Tua Tagovailoa, QB, Alabama

6. L.A. Chargers: Justin Herbert, QB, Oregon

7. Carolina: Derrick Brown, DT, Auburn

8. Arizona: Tristan Wirfs, OT, Iowa

9. Jacksonville: CJ Henderson, CB, Florida

10. Cleveland: Jedrick Wills Jr., OT, Alabama

11. N.Y. Jets: Andrew Thomas, OT, Georgia

12. Las Vegas: Jerry Jeudy, WR, Alabama

13. San Francisco (via Indianapolis): CeeDee Lamb, WR, Oklahoma

14. Tampa Bay: Mekhi Becton, OT, Louisville

15. Denver: Henry Ruggs III, WR, Alabama

16. Atlanta: Javon Kinlaw, DT, South Carolina

17. Dallas: K'Lavon Chaisson, OLB, LSU

18. Miami (via Pittsburgh): Josh Jones, OT, Houston

19. Las Vegas (via Chicago): Kristian Fulton, CB, LSU

20. Jacksonville (via L.A. Rams): Antoine Winfield Jr., S/CB, Minnesota

21. Philadelphia: Justin Jefferson, WR, LSU

22. Minnesota (via Buffalo): Trevon Diggs, CB, Alabama

23. New England: Jordan Love, QB, Utah State

24. New Orleans: A.J. Epenesa, DE, Iowa

25. Minnesota: Yetur Gross-Matos, DE, Penn State

26. Miami (via Houston): D'Andre Swift, RB, Georgia

27. Seattle: Curtis Weaver, DE, Boise State

28. Baltimore: Kenneth Murray, LB, Oklahoma

29. Tennessee: Ezra Cleveland, OT, Boise State

30. Green Bay: Tee Higgins, WR, Clemson

31. San Francisco: Raekwon Davis, DT, Alabama

32. Kansas City: Cesar Ruiz, C/G, Michigan

Liberals are not the Protector of State Rights

Since Trump correctly claimed he had total power over the economy Liberals are now professing the 10th Amendment to refute Trump's claims. This is pretty disingenuous because liberals have worked tirelessly to redact the 10th Amendment from having any impact in constitutional law. Just as liberals proclaim that nationalism is racist (comparing it to Hitler and fascism) they have done the same about state rights. They say state rights advocates are racists because states rights had been used in the past to protect slavery. But this is far from the truth (Read my book defending freedom of contract). First, it was Democrats that promoted States rights and slavery from the South. On the other hand, it was State rights and the North promoting to abolish of slavery. It was the Federal government that supported slavery in the first part of American history as can be seen in many Court cases such as Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Democrats have always used State rights or nationalism when it suits their needs such as State rights to protect illegal immigrants or state rights for marijuana use (except in Raich when it could diminish federal authority over the commerce clause). So what is the reason to promote state rights for opening the economy? Only because Trump is president. But another thing that Democrats fail to realize that in the closing of the economy and in the opening of the economy, Trump and the federal government placed very little mandatory mandates, rules, or regulations on the states. The federal government will lay out some guidelines, but the states will have full power over what they do to close or reopen the economy. Trump has walked on eggshells not wanting to be sued by states for Constitutional violations and up to this point there have been none. However, by the time this over there will be dozens of suits filed against state governments for constitutional violations or personal liberties. This is actually a smart move by Trump because when the economy does not recover very quickly, he can point to the states and their policies. He can say I have done my job and given them trillions and did everything to control the virus, but it is the governors that are the decision makers. Governors breach of power will rile up Republicans in an election year.

Sure, Republicans do the same thing with federalism and nationalism. But the Democrats have succeeded at redacting important clauses from the Constitution such as the Ninth Amendment, tenth Amendment, and contracts clause. Progressives added the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments to further limit federalism. Progressives changed the meaning of the constitution from being a Republic to a Democracy and are even trying to change it to a social state. This has had dire effects on federalism. You can read all about in my book: Defending Freedom of Contract. There is over a century of progressive movement to eliminate state's rights. Now they want State rights. It merely shows how two faced they are when dealing with Trump and Trump is playing the game just right. Leaving the responsibility to the States.

Unfortunately, Trump (Federal Government) has Total Authority Over Economy

I urge folks to read my book Defending Freedom of Contract to understand why the Federal Government has total power over the economy. The original meaning of the commerce clause in the constitution was to protect trade between the states, but Supreme Court precedent has changed that meaning to include everything that is economic including manufacturing, wages, hours, child labor, and even intrastate trade. The change in the meaning of the commerce clause happened gradually over time. The change began early in American history in the Marshall Court's ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden. In this case, the meaning of the commerce clause was changed from trade to a more ambiguous meaning of intercourse.

By the time the FDR court came around they changed the meaning of commerce to include anything that may have even a minute impact on commerce including intrastate trade. In Wickard v. Filburn the FDR court ruled that a farmer could not grow more wheat on his farm than dictated by the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) even if the excess wheat would go to feed his livestock and family. Unfortunately, this horrible ruling was upheld in Raich v. Gonzalez only a few short years ago. Raich denied a terminally ill woman the right to grow marijuana for self use. In fact, Raich protected the illegal marijuana market at the expense of Raich's civil rights. Actually, Wickard and Raich would essentially deny anyone the right to have a garden of any kind because it would a have a minute impact on commerce. It has not come to that yet, but we are very close. During the Coronavirus epidemic, Michigan Governor Whitmer denied persons the right to garden.

Now, everyone is up in arms and saying States have rights protected by the 10th Amendment. That is true, but the 10th amendment was turned into a truism with little meaning by the FDR Court in U.S. v. Darby Lumber: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." This decision was upheld in Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority, but was overturned in National League of Cities v. Usery. Around this time conservative courts have tried diminish some of the damage of Wickard and Darby Lumber. In United States v. Morrison, United States v. Lopez, and United States v. Bond the court upheld 10th amendment arguments against the commerce clause. In Morrison, Lopez, and Bond the Court held that economic rights protected by the commerce clause did not extend to criminal behavior. After all, the federal government only has the authority to prosecute very few types of crimes in the Constitution: Slavery, crimes against the nation, treason, and counterfeiting. That is it! That said, the reemergence of the 10th amendment still did not stop federal control over all economic activities. The courts have done a similar thing to the 9th Amendment. The Constitution is short and our Founders had a purpose for every word and clause. They did not intend for certain provisions to be ignored.

The founders did not place any hierarchy of powers in the Constitution. In other words, all clauses and amendments had equal weighting. But the Court found ways around that by claiming the 9th and 10th amendments were truism. The 11th amendment was used to trump the contract clause because it was a newer provision. Even today, not all amendments are held to the same regard. The bottom line is if one amendment or clause fails then the law should fail. But this is not how things are done and the 10th amendment has very little clout also being trumped by the 14th amendment in many cases.

States may rely on some compelling reason such as the safety of the American public over the coronavirus to stop federal authority. But public health goes both ways since an economic collapse will also affect the mental and physical health of Americans.

The history of the Supreme Court is littered with precedent of allowing governments the right to infringe on the rights of Americans (behind the guise of health and safety) even when the ends do not justify the means. Take for instance the Slaughter House Cases. In these cases, the Court held Louisiana could permanently deny butchers the right work that profession to protect the city of New Orleans from disease. This may sound legitimate, but some basic guidelines for eliminating waste from butchers shops could have prevented disease without eliminating butcher businesses.

The bottom line, SCOTUS has provided the federal government complete authority over any economic conditions. This is not right, but it is now the law thank you to liberal power grabs.

The Hysterical Food Police

Going grocery shopping is already a nightmare, but it just got worse. Our store is already too small for our city and that explains why I had to wait an hour to get in the store because they are limiting shoppers. Okay, I understand that, it is better to be safe than sorry. But shortly after getting into the store the couple waiting in line behind me brought the store manager up to me and pointed and said "Him! He is the one!" The manager started to quiz me as the couple and others looked on. How old am I? he asked. I replied "56". The lady said he is a liar. I showed him my license. He then explained to me that 7 to 8 am is limited to persons that are 60 or older or have some underlying health conditions. I explained it was after 8am by the time I got in the store. The couple argued I should have not been in line before 8 am. They were also were angered that I did not wear a face mask while waiting in line and went the wrong way down one aisle complaining that I was a naysayer of science. Those complaints are true, but the new one way signs are hard to see. I also explained a mask was not required in the line outside because we were all well over 6 feet apart. Furthermore, no grocery store workers were wearing masks and at that same time 3 people were going the wrong way down the aisle. Are they going to be reprimanded? I also explained only one family member should do the shopping, are they going to be reprimanded? I would never complain about such a violation because I nothing about them, maybe they both need to shop because they have some disability. I do not know.

When I explained to the manager that I had an underlying medical condition. Again, I was called a liar and naysayer of science. I explained how I had low immunoglobulins and lymphocytes. I had been immune deficient since I was a child. I told them I have been sick most of life and they did not believe me. I also explained to the scientists that covid is more likely to kill men than women because they have better immune systems than men. That is why women are more susceptible to get an autoimmune disease, sometimes a strong system attacks good cells. And that is why they live much longer than men. They did not believe me or my science so I invited them to be my guest this Friday afternoon at the hospital infusion clinic where I am getting IVIg treatments for immune deficiency, neurological disease, and autoimmune disease. I said lunch is on me and would welcome company for the 4 hour procedure.

He let me finish but warned about coming back during restricted hours. They did not believe me even though they accused me of being 35 years old and were proven wrong on that point.

Shopping has become a nightmare but this is out of line. None of us know what is going on inside another person and to presume we do is very dangerous. If we can all worry about ourselves and do the right thing then everything will be alright. We do not need a bunch of presumptuous know it all chiefs dictating their biased beliefs on others.