Arizona House Passes Anti-Mask Bill After GOP Sponsor says Masks Weren’t Needed For AIDS in the 80s

I think you are confusing the law with social mores.

That you cannot offer any legal notes or foundation for your claim that "it's the law" says alot. Either it's not there, or you're rather bluffing.

Public indecency is one thing, and fairly well was brought by the Puritanical mindset. I've been all through the US Constitution and cannot find any language even suggesting the government has lawful authority to tell the citizen what clothing he must wear.

 

And yet every state in the union has such laws. If you do not believe me walk down the main street in your town naked and see what happens. If you are a female just walk around topless and see what happens.

Every state in the union has laws telling you to wear a seat belt.

All but 3 states have laws forcing people to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.

To my knowledge not one of these laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.

 

Many such 'laws' are tied to federal funding by way of DOT 'guidelines'. It's a form of extortion or bribery. The insurance industry is also a big player in demanding such 'laws'.

Still Darth, you are unable to cite any sort of US Constitution or State Constitution power to tell the citizen what he must wear, eat or hold.

You are engaged in a sort of legal sophistry, but that is common. Rationalizing government usurpation is very common amongst the populace.

 

Then it should be even easier to get the SCOTUS to rule just once and then they are all gone....why has that not happened yet?

Why have you never had a post about any of these things yet find it necessary to whine about a 4 inch piece of cloth on your face? If you really cared about these laws you would have been doing something about them prior to mask mandates.

What I can site is irrelevant. I cannot site anything in the US Constitution that makes abortion legal, yet it is.

I cannot site anything in the US Constitution that makes Social Security legal, yet it is.

What is in the US Constitution is determined by the SCOTUS, not you or I.

 

I can cite that part of the USC regarding abortion, but you cannot. That simply confirms what I already knew--your knowledge of legal principles is very thin, almost non-existent.

The Ninth Amendment covers the right to abortion, and birth control as reflected in Griswold v. Connecticut.

 

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

I do not see anything about abortion. But if it is as wide open as you say then any specific thing not listed in the Constitution should not be illegal/unlawful.

So I guess you are right, clothing laws, seat belt laws, speed limits, stop lights, any and all drugs, alcohol by those under 21 should all be the way of the land since none of them are listed in the Constitution.

Awesome, I am sure when I am pulled over for going through a red light at 120 mph they will agree!

 

By the way, you have over 13,000 post on this forum.

How many of them were speaking out against seat belt laws or helmet laws or clothing ordinances prior to this thread?

 

No, you don't see the word abortion and you don't see the word privacy, and you don't see the words birth control.

It seems that English might not be your primary language, because by this post you indicate you have no clue about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. It's worse than I thought.

 

By the way, you have over 13,000 post on this forum.

How many of them were speaking out against seat belt laws or helmet laws or clothing ordinances prior to this thread?