Stay at home orders

Stay at home orders?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.)

We are not Europe we are not Nz. This is America. Freedoms are unalienable here and the decision is the right of the individual. In a Constitutional Republic the majority opinion cannot have any bearing on the rights of the individual. In America Rights are not and cannot be controlled by vote of the majority, or by dictates from public officials. If you agree with the dictates that are being disseminated by public officials that seek to diminish your rights then you can freely waive your rights and comply, you have that contractual power, but no one can compel others in America to do the same if they chose not to.

The risk is theirs and it will not affect you if you are safely holdup in your home. Some chose to be actively striving to provide for their rents and food and naturally develop immunity, these are the survivors. Too much forced sequestering then many people will will be out on the streets jobless homeless and hungry. Not everyone relies on the world and public funding as they sit in their ivory tower trying to direct the traffic of others. Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.


Hosea 4: 6-7

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An ordinance which... makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.” SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) 394 U.S. 147 U.S. Supreme Court SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.

No. 42. Argued November 18, 1968. Decided March 10, 1969.