Thread: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I would say even less then that blake. How many times have you turned on cspan to see votes being cast in an almost empty room.

Unfortunately way more than I like. (I actually enjoy cspan btw)

I believe that term limits should be placed on all government officials and that they should only receive as pay the average income of their constituents.

But hey, I'm some sort of radical or something...

I agree with term limits. I don't agree with giving them the average pay of their constituents, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Oh yeah, and CSPAN is win. I have it in HD and I like to watch it while I eat breakfast.

That sort of bill is entirely different and I would oppose it to the death.

So if someone has gonnasyphaherpaids that is transmitted aerosolized then it should be fine for them to go to the mall, church, and school?

For the good of the public I have no problem with such people having their movement curtailed.

Quarantine? yes. Restrict movement of infected people? Yes. Allow forceful entry into private dwellings? Absolutely not! Allowing destruction of private property? No. To "Prohibit or restrict assemblages of persons?" No.

Not everything about it is bad. Quarantines during a bio-hazardous crisis is a good idea. Allowing police to enter peoples' private homes without permission or against permission, take and destroy their things and in some cases take their animals for testing is not right under any circumstance.

Also troublesome is the (once again) vague wording. These powers can be granted if the governor declares a "state of emergency" or an emergency exists that is detrimental to public health. That could be any number of situations where these powers would not be necessary or warranted.

I think bills are left open ended so they don't become 3000 pages long from having to spell out everything. Because if you make it just one thing is illegal, while a form of that isn't considered under that and blah blah blah. Thus laws are usually annoyingly vague to allow judges to interpret the law in specific cases (or so i think).

Granted that also makes it an easy way to break the law because you can say you did something because of law #401-B, and show how it ties into 401-B, even if it doesn't do specifically what 401-B is made for.


And thus which we run into the problem of too much power, and all that such. As we see happen with Cops alot, government's sometimes and so forth. Example could be the Bill of Rights which has been picked apart numerous times because they didn't forsee things the would go no in the future. Thus wiretaps aren't against your rights and all that sort.