Mediaboss Marketing

On Wednesday, April 15, FoxNews host Tucker Carlson gave voice to many Americans' questions when he pressed Democrat New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy to scientifically and constitutionally justify his seemingly arbitrary lockdowns of businesses, police busts of peaceful religious gatherings, and arrests of solitary beachgoers.

Governor Murphys replies were less than substantive. Some might even call them flip and fueled by political conceit.

First, Carlson inquired about the scientific rationales Murphy claims prompted him to determine that liquor stores (which provide a lot of tax cash for the state) were essential, thus allowing gathering within their walls.

Murphy noted that he and his government friends relied on a whole lotta input reasonable input -- from recovery coaches, addiction coaches, and they cautioned us that if we shut those down wed have unintended mental health, uh, consequences to pay

But this prompted Carlson to ask the next logical question, again, on the practical side:

But you have closed church services and synagogue services and arrested people for attempting to attend them. Did anyone say that, maybe, practicing (ones) faith may be important to someones mental health?

Murphys answer was, as lawyers put it, non-responsive. He mentioned talking to faith leaders from those clichs of belief communities and talked about social distancing and face coverings, and then he offered this almost perfectly political nonsense statement:

Theres an enormous amount of faith going on virtually right now, a lot of practicing goin on, and we care deeply about both physical health and mental health.

Obviously, that wasnt quite satisfying to Carlson, so he pressed on what scientific basis the Governor might offer for the distinction between shutting down churches, while leaving booze markets open. The Governor did not provide one.

So Tucker approached the arbitrariness of Murphys diktats along a different factual vector, noting:

A man was arrested for sitting alone on a beach. Tell me why that poses a danger, and, again, on what scientific basis did you make that decision.

Murphy offered no scientific basis. So, again, Carlson had to press him, and in his question, he imparted the image of potentially infected cops breaking the six-foot barrier to arrest a lone person on an empty beach.

Arresting someone for sitting alone on a beach. Tell me how that arrests the spread of the coronavirus, from an epidemiological point of view.

And Murphy had to admit defeat.

Yeah, I wasnt referring to that. I actually dont have the specifics as to why that happened.

Of course, the practical side is always going to be debated as long as the government is involved and as long as people have different takes on the science, the data, and the best way to address risk.

The more fundamental questions remained, and those have to do with essential human rights. Thankfully, Carlson had those ready, asking this most important of American in fact, human questions, specifically pertaining to police in NJ arresting fifteen visitors at a synagogue:

The Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans right enshrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together, to assemble peacefully. By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order?

Murphy admitted what we already knew.

Thats above my pay-grade, Tucker. I wasnt thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.

Heck. Not only is this NOT above Murphys pay grade (salary extracted from taxpayers), it is supposedly what his position is all about. Its the focus of his oath of office to protect and defend the US and NJ constitutions. And if Murphy were considering the Bill of Rights, hed wonder if maybe, just maybe, his edicts contravene the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the same Amendments prohibition of punishment without due process of law,the Sixth Amendmentssupposed assurance of a speedy trial before a jury,the Eighth Amendmentsprohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (with no real criminal activity, any punishment is both unusual and cruel), andthe Fourteenth Amendments reiteration of the standard of due process of law.

And Murphy isnt alone. As I mentioned earlier this week, many governors are engaging in this kind of attack on rights.

To put it simply for all of them

If politicians can tell us that the potential of spreading a harmful pathogen gives them the power to stop us from gathering in public places, that they can shut down the private establishments where we work and shop, that they can stop gatherings at private homes -- where's the cut-off? The practical side of that question tells us that since, at any given time -- even times of simple flu -- the government doesn't know who is infected, meaning they must assume we are ALL potential carriers, does that mean they can shut down all of the public (tax supported) places any time, all the time?

And since, in 1946, the Supreme Court erroneously said that private property is actually public, no different in their eyes than land on which all taxpayers money is showered, does the same go for businesses and homes?

What if ONE person might die by being bumped into on a sidewalk, or in a park? Will the government permanently close those, or mandate "social distancing" and fine people for walking "too close"?

This series of thoughts and questions requires us to see the distinction between private property and public property and recognize the "elephant" that's been "in the room" since government in the US began running roads, parks, certain buildings, and "open spaces" and then it began encroaching on private businesses.

The Bill of Rights was written to stop that kind of arbitrary government attack on liberty, both on real public property, and in private homes, businesses, and religious houses.

Its a shame Governor Murphy and many others arent familiar with the document.

Read the original post:
NJ Gov Murphy's Lockdown: 'I Wasn't Thinking Of The Bill of Rights' - MRCTV

The United States Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a Puerto Rican resident can keep $28,000 in disability benefits, rebuffing the United States governments attempt to recoup the amount in a victory hailed as a win for persons with disabilities living in territories like the Virgin Islands.

While we respect the legislatures authority to make even unwise decisions to purportedly protect the fiscal integrity of SSI and the federal government itself, the Fifth Amendment does not permit the arbitrary treatment of individuals who would otherwise qualify for SSI but for their residency in Puerto Rico, wrote appellate Judge Juan Torruella, who wrote the opinion for the First Circuit.

The case revolves around Jose Luis Vaello Madero, a U.S. citizen who moved to Puerto Rico in 2013 to care for family after living in New York for 28 years. While a New York resident, Madero received Supplemental Security Income, a federal benefit for blind, elderly or disabled persons earning less than $750 per month. Three years after moving to Puerto Rico, Madero received word from the Social Security Administration that he was no longer eligible for SSI, and in 2017, Social Security filed a civil suit against Madero to recover more than $28,000 in SSI benefits.

Both Madero and the U.S. government filed for summary judgment in District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. When Madero won, the government appealed in the First Circuit which issued the key ruling on Friday.

Maderos plight is familiar to Virgin Islands residents who, by living in the territory, forgo privileges and benefits otherwise available to residents of the 50 states, including the ability to vote in the presidential elections and having a congressional representative who can vote beyond a House committee.

The SSI benefits, in particular, are available to U.S. citizens living in the states, defined by the Social Security Act as the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Northern Mariana Islands received SSI coverage in 1976 as part of its covenant to enter the United States. Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam are excluded, while American Samoa is not eligible.

The U.S. government premised the lawsuit against Madero in part on the islands unique tax status, that residents of Puerto Rico do not, as a general matter, pay federal income taxes. Madero responded that Puerto Ricos tax status has nothing to do with the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from SSI benefits, adding that eligibility under the program does not consider an individuals tax payment history and individuals earning income low enough to qualify for SSI will not be paying federal income tax regardless of where they reside. Siding with Madero, the First Circuit noted that the SSI program is disbursed without regard to an individuals historical residence and funded by appropriations that are not earmarked by state or territory.

The court also noted that not only did Puerto Rican residents make substantial contributions to the federal treasury, it made consistently higher payments than taxpayers in at least six states, as well as the Northern Marianas. Before the 2006 recession, Puerto Rico contributed more than $4 billion annually in federal taxes and impositions, the court noted.

The U.S. government also pointed to the costs of extending the SSI program to Puerto Rican residents. Invoking the Territorial Clause in Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the government claimed that precedent allowed the differential treatment of Puerto Ricans, an argument that convinced neither the Court of Appeals nor the court below. According to the First Circuit, while the court can defer to the governments fiscal decisions that improve the protection afforded to the entire benefitted class, excluding an entire segment of the would-be-benefitted class is a different story.

Of note to the Virgin Islands is the comparison drawn between the Northern Marianas, a territory covered by SSI, and Puerto Rico, which is not. Aside from where they live, residents of Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas have common legally relevant characteristics: both groups are low-income and low-resourced, elderly, disabled or blind, and are generally exempted from paying federal income tax. These shared traits, which undermined the governments arguments in the eyes of the First Circuit, easily apply to otherwise eligible low-income Virgin Islanders who are blind, elderly or living with a disability.

The fact that Congress extended SSI benefits to Northern Mariana residents also suggest that the Legislature recognized the importance of the program to territories, according to the court.

Puerto Rico District Court Judge Gustavo Gelpi, who wrote the lower court opinion that led to the governments appeal, painted a less forgiving picture that encapsulated territories objections to differential treatment by the federal government.

The authority to treat the territory of Puerto Rico itself unlike the states does not stretch as far as to permit the abrogation of fundamental constitutional protections to United States citizens as Congress sees fit, Gelpi noted, saying the Social Security Acts withholding of SSI benefits from a low-income disabled citizen simply because he resides in Puerto Rico creates a citizenship apartheid, an impermissible second-rate citizenship that amounts to Congress switching off fundamental rights.

While the First Circuit decision is non-binding on the Third Circuit, which covers the Virgin Islands, federal circuit courts historically look to the other circuits decisions. The U.S. government is expected to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link:
Puerto Rican's Win in Benefits Case Could Aid Territories - St, Thomas Source

This column is part of our ongoing opinion commentary on faith, called Living Our Faith. Find this weeks reader question and get weekly roundups of the project in your email inbox by signing up for the Living Our Faith newsletter.

I work with a wizened old pastor who has an annoying habit of looking on the bright side. In the face of bad news, he will stubbornly ask, What does this make possible? He is an optimist, an opportunist, and a bur under the saddle of those of us who would rather worry and wallow in the rain than look for silver linings in the clouds.

As the torrent of bad coronavirus news keeps drenching my news feed, Ive been imagining his reaction. He will lean back in his chair. He will rub his beard under a half smile with his right hand where he is missing part of a finger lost to a motorcycle chain decades ago a deformity he declares to have made possible many interesting conversations with strangers. And he will ask, What does a global pandemic make possible?

None of us would have chosen this crisis. We should make every effort to limit and end it, but might there also be an invitation in it? An invitation to something that wouldnt have been possible before life was interrupted? Could we make it our goal not just to survive this isolation with adequate supplies of Netflix and toilet paper, but actually to emerge on the other side more healthy, more connected than we were before? How might we get there?

In the fourth century, a Turkish ascetic with a grey beard and worried eyes named Evagrius the Solitary identified a condition of the soul he called acedia. He described it as spiritual sloth or apathy, and he reviled it so much that he listed it among eight of the souls most threatening distractions which, after an editor got hold of them, became the seven deadly sins. Acedia is not idleness. In fact, it causes its sufferers to stay busy, fill each moment with noise or task while neglecting deeper work. Soul work.

Father Peter Verhalen knows about soul work. He is the abbot at Cistercian Abbey, a Catholic monastery in Irving. When I called him last week to ask about acedia, he pointed to the words etymology. The prefix a" meaning without, and kdos meaning "to care. Its Greek. In fact, acedia is central to one of ancient Greeces most enduring cultural contributions. In the play Antigone, the eponymous heroine has the courage to make up for a kings failure to care for the body of her brother Polynices by giving him a proper burial. Acedia is a failure to care about things that matter. Antigone refuses acedia and becomes one of the first heroines of Western literature.

A more modern presentation, Father Peter said, is that acedia is an attitude that says: I dont give a flip. Im kind-of indifferent, and Ill do what I want to do. Im no longer concerned about God. And that is an attitude that should be very familiar to us in 2020. Before the coronavirus arrived, acedia might have been the plague of our age. We were busy with commerce but slothful with our souls. And even though the coronavirus has halted business, it hasnt stopped the temptation to neglect things that matter. We are besieged by the inane. Dulled by stimulation. Made vain by documentary voyeurism. Made shallow by the bottomless scroll of our devices. So that an Uptown nightclub called Sidebar can exhort us in glowing purple neon, without irony, to keep Dallas pretentious.

And its just here that we might find the invitation in the pandemic. While we shelter in place, many of us are settling into a less frenzied, dare I say less pretentious, rule of life. We may have kids or video calls demanding more attention, but our calendars arent as overstuffed with travel, errands, practices or social events.

I asked Father Peter what we might learn from being cloistered, what he and his brothers have learned.

Different people are accustomed to different levels of quiet and solitude, and I think, by and large, monks and nuns are accustomed to more solitude than most. But even for monks its difficult.

Its a question of what one does with the quiet. Do we spend more time with internet, entertainment, and distraction, or do we try to spend a little bit more time connecting with our brothers in the monastery, or connecting with family members? In the quiet of being sequestered, we have the opportunity to become more attentive to one anothers needs.

Or possibly to our own needs. One of the effects of acedia is that we lose the ability to find ourselves, to be aware of the condition of our own souls. The sagacious Parker Palmer lays bare our ailment in his book A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey Toward an Undivided Life.

In our culture, we tend to gather information in ways that do not work very well when the source is the human soul: The soul is not responsive to subpoenas or cross-examinations. At best it will stand in the dock only long enough to plead the Fifth Amendment. At worst it will jump bail and never be heard from again. The soul speaks its truth only under quiet, inviting, and trustworthy conditions. The soul is like a wild animal tough, resilient, savvy, self-sufficient, and yet exceedingly shy. If we want to see a wild animal, the last thing we should do is to go crashing through the woods, shouting for the creature to come out. But if we are willing to walk quietly into the woods and sit silently for an hour or two at the base of a tree, the creature we are waiting for may well emerge, and out of the corner of an eye we will catch a glimpse of the precious wildness we seek.

Perhaps there is some precious wildness to be found in our coronavirus cloistering. Perhaps we might find time to sit at the base of a tree or the end of our driveway long enough to glimpse it. Father Peter said our acedia loses its allure when our relentless pursuit of distraction or productivity gets exposed. "When we get pushed to the limits as we are getting pushed now, we cant maintain that attitude, he said. "You start saying, No, things do matter.'

Our sequestering in Dallas County has been extended at least through April 30. Schools wont reopen until at least May 4. Those of us who celebrate Easter today wont be enjoying big family brunches or neighborhood egg hunts. Those of us observing Passover held smaller, quieter seders. And those of us about to start Ramadan wont be free to gather for evening prayers and Iftar.

But perhaps what all this makes possible is something higher up and further in, to borrow C.S. Lewis phrase. Perhaps theres an invitation to a pathway that isnt littered with fast food wrappers and Tiger King episodes and bare-nerved conversations held too late at night because the day was busy and traffic was snarled and the kids just wouldnt go to bed.

None of us would ever have chosen this crisis, but now that its upon us, perhaps there is something it makes possible.

Ryan Sanders is a pastor at Irving Bible Church and an opinion writer for The Dallas Morning News.

Link:
Coronavirus may allow us to address the distractions that separate us from each other and God - The Dallas Morning News

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Section 4, 25thAmendment

Mike Pence for president. While in normal circumstances Iwould never endorse him, between now and January 20, 2021, I think he should have the job. It is time for a citizens movement to demand the 25th Amendment to the Constitution be invoked and Donald Trump removed from office.Why? Because he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

He is clearly not in his right mind. Before the US has even reached the peak of COVID-19 cases (which could be 100,000 when you read this), he recklessly said, Iwould love to have thecountry opened upand raring to go byEaster on April 12. Every health expertnot to mention governors and mayors of both parties, and many Republicans members of Congressthink this is a dangerousidea.

Only a leader not in his right mind would buck the public health consensus and the practices of every other country that has successfully decreased the number of cases of the coronavirus. Wanting people to go back to work now is delusional; it threatens workers, their families, and thousands, potentially millions, as well as US and international security.

Whenever Trump, flanked by the White House Coronavirus Task Force, steps before the cameras he displays why he is unfit. The doctors serving on that task forceespecially Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birxwitness his rants almost daily (and up close and too personal). Imagine Drs. Fauci and Birx leading a delegation to congressional leaders and the Trump cabinet to call for his removal. It isnt hard to do. You may say Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one.

The Teflon president who has survived sex, lies, and Ukrainian tapeseven impeachmentis too dangerous to be allowed to remain in officenot for several more days, let alone several more months.

Take his tirade against NBC News reporter Peter Alexander last week. Noting that thousands of Americans are infected with the coronavirus and that millions more are frightened, Alexander gave Trump an opportunity to reassure an anxious nation, asking, What do you say to Americans who are scared? In response, Trump spat out, I say that you are a terrible reporter. Thats what I say and then let loose a torrent of invective against Alexander. What president in his right mind would turn a moment to act as consoler-in-chief into a hysterical rant? (By contrast VP Pence answered, I would say, Do not be afraid to be vigilant.)

AreTrumps supporters scared more of his wrath than they are of the virus? Are they blind to his erratic behavior? Sen. Mitt Romney was the lone Republican to vote to convict at Trumps impeachment trial. Lets urge him to meet with Dr. Fauci to discuss removal.

These are psychiatric symptoms, not simply boorish behaviors, Dr. John Talmadge, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centertweetedrecently, suggesting Trump is not sound of mind. Trump is mentally ill, cognitively compromised, brain impaired. We must not become the frog slowly boiling in poisoned water.

At a time when millions of people living through the pandemic have been urgedorderedto stay indoors, and as world economies barely hang on, it is more than irresponsibleto use the presidential bully pulpit to proclaim you have a good feeling that the antimalarial drug chloroquine could be a cure for COVID-19: it is delusional and ahealth hazard. No clinical trials have been completed to reliably suggest the drug as a treatment. In fact, anArizona man diedand his wife was hospitalized after they took chloroquine phosphate after hearing Trump suggest it as a possible effective treatment for the virus.

Dr.Bandy X. Lee, clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, told Medhi Hasan ofThe Interceptthat Trump dangerously lacks mental capacity, which he exhibits through his inability to take in information and advice, to process critical information, or to consider consequences before making impulsive, unstable, and irrational decisions that are not based in reality but fight reality. She pointed out that at coronavirus briefings he exhibits delusional-level distortion and misinformation because he is disconnected from reality.

Wildfire damage iseasy to see. Earthquakes and hurricanes, too. The mental illness of a president endangering our country is right in front of us if we simply open our eyes.

Out of his depth, yes; out of his mind, definitely. Out of office? Only if we push to make it happen.

Continued here:
A Citizens' Call to Invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment - CounterPunch

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Does that apply when the government orders a business to close its doors indefinitely in order to help prevent the spread of COVID-19? Is the shuttered business entitled to compensation for its troubles?

These are not hypothetical questions. Schulmerich Bells, a small outfit that makes handcrafted handbells and chimes in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Gov. Thomas Wolf's order indefinitely closing all "non-life-sustaining" businesses during the COVID-19 outbreak. "The Governor has placed the cost of these Ordersissued for the benefit of the publicsquarely upon the shoulders of private individuals and their families, and has failed to justly compensate affected parties for these takings undertaken for their benefit to the public," the suit states. "These uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." The suit seeks the payment of just compensation by the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long said that the states may regulateand even prohibitcertain property uses in the name of public health and safety without triggering the Takings Clause. In Mugler v. Kansas (1887), the Court ruled against a liquor manufacturer whose livelihood was destroyed when the state banned the sale and manufacture of "intoxicating beverages." According to the Court, "a prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit." Such government action "does not disturb the owner in the control or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use by any one, for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public interests."

Similarly, in Miller v. Schoene (1928), the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law requiring the destruction of red cedar trees infected with cedar rust if those trees stood within two miles of an apple orchard (cedar rust is highly detrimental to apple trees). "The state does not exceed its constitutional powers by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public," the Court said. "It will not do to say that the case is merely one of a conflict of two private interests and that the misfortune of apple growers may not be shifted to cedar owners by ordering the destruction of their property; for it is obvious that there may be, and that here there is, a preponderant public concern in the preservation of the one interest over the other."

In short, if this particular lawsuit is going to succeed, it will have to clear some steep precedential hurdles.

Related: "Police Powers During a Pandemic, Constitutional, but Not Unlimited."

Read more from the original source:
This Business Is Suing the Government Over a Coronavirus Closure Order - Reason