B: Today my father complained about how his old phone is not compatible with app that is suddenly mandatory by the state if he wants to leave his town without getting a fine.
*Lisa Simpson on stage meme: If you let politicians break the law in an emergency, they will create an emergency in order to break the law*
Me: So why don't we have more emergencies?
C: shhh, don’t ask them real questions!
D: why do you think they constantly declare everything a "state of emergency"?
Me: There were no non-foreign sanctions related emergencies declared in the US between October 24 2010 and February 15 2019 List of national emergencies in the United States - Wikipedia
Before that the US had no new emergencies declared (again excluding sanctions) from May 2004 to Oct 2009
A: you put "national" in there purposefully.
I know full well various states have declared weather related state of emergencies every year.
The executive powers they are using to do this do not need a "national emergency" to implement control. A state level emergency would suffice. This is specifically why my governor keeps extending the state level "state of emergency", because he would not be granted the emergency powers under the State law unless he did so, regardless of a declaration of a national emergency at the Federal level.
The problem is, most people aren't going to challenge something that might be an executive overreach if it only lasted a few days.
You could probably go back and find executive orders that might be unconstitutional under state of emergency if they were actually challenged, but there is little point to waste the money when it would take months to litigate and would be moot upon being resolved (and many judges may just dismiss the cases specifically because the challenge is moot AFTER the emergency is over).
The difference with COVID is that it is specifically demonstrating the overreach when you are dealing with emergencies that last for months. If anything, this is the perfect time to challenge executive actions to clear up what is and isn't allowed under declarations of emergency.
Me: what state are you in?
and do you think your state government is more tyrannical than the federal one?
A: the Federal one isn't closing down businesses and forcing fines on People.
That's all happened at the State and city level.
Me: you haven't answered what state you're in
A: it has no relevance on the debate.
If I state California, New York, New Mexico, or Texas, would it really make a difference?
What would you cite to make that relevant?
you can easily do a Google search for "[insert name of governor] extends state of emergency" and find they are all doing it in each of the states I mentioned.
Me: you claim states declare emergencies to gain power
Yet the fact is that it's rare for states to declare emergencies
So evidently this power has not been abused historically
so would you say that world war II did not merit a state of emergency that lasted 4ish years and that this emergency was an excuse to grab power?
A: please actually focus on what I actually stated.
Emergency powers are ripe with constitutional violations. Most are ignored because most only last a few days.
This overreach is only challenged in such situations as Covid.
I don't care if it's a few days or a few months, this situation is making it clear what actions are clear violations of the constitution and reining in executive authority.
Me: if you won't state what you think would justify an extended state of emergency, that suggests you think nothing would. And most people would disagree with that
A: so you believe a state of emergency should give the ability to violate the constitution?
Not once did I state that I said the State of Emergency itself is unconstitutional. I stated there are many examples of executive orders that are unconstitutional implemented under the state of emergency.
Me: erm. A state of emergency is literally to allow you to do things you can't normally.
What is a national emergency? Here are 8 things to know
A: they still cannot violate the constitution, unless you think the history of Japanese Internment is okay.
Me: actually,
"Over 90 percent of constitutions in force today include emergency clauses that allow the government to step outside of the ordinary constitutional framework and to take actions that would not otherwise be permitted"
A: at this point, you're just saying it's fine to load people on trains.
I'm literally ending this discussion with you.
If you believe in unlimited executive authority with no checks and balances, just go to hell.
You are an absolute moron.
Ahh, Americans and their quaint ideas about "tyranny".