Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjos | Hacker News Reader

You can hate or love Elon, it has no effect on the law. What he’s doing is lawful. Executive orders that deprive natural rights are unconstitutional and thus illegal.

The entire concept of natural rights like the Bill of Rights means they pre-existed the government and society. You can only deprive a person of these rights through some lawful process. Society is still functioning; we’re not in martial law. Yes people should willingly comply but you can’t force them to.

View on HN

Nothing you are saying is legally correct. These issues can only be decided through litigation, which has not occurred.

There have been some cases decided. Gun stores were allowed to reopen last week in MA by court order after being deemed non-essential, but they are of course specially protected. Churches have won court cases to be able to hold in-person services, also a specially protected class.

But then there was the case of the barber shop in Michigan which just today a judge denied a preliminary injunction where the state was trying to keep them closed.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/judge-denies-state-reques...

They don't need to be legally correct if the voters believe it. That's the point. The state governments and the federal ones exist in so far as the populace decides they are legitimate.

The Government operates with the consent of the governed, not the other way around!

The alternative is civil war.

Which right gives you the ability to operate your business during a pandemic? I think there is a reasonable case to be made that you have a constitutional right to gather in groups and leave your home even under shelter in place, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that this would apply to businesses. I don't know that much about it though.

Then shouldn't this apply equally to all other businesses?

It should apply equally to all other similar businesses in the same area. Elon has been complaining that Tesla is the only automaker under these restrictions, but no other automaker is in California so the comparison makes no sense.

There are other manufacturing businesses in California, and plenty of public activity in general. I find it strange to see the local Costco crowded with people, no gloves or distancing and only some masks while a giant factory with clear procedures is supposedly a risk.

Because people buy, you know, food, at costco, something they need to survive.

That's a far cry from uber-expensive luxury cars for the rich that Tesla sells.

The point is that there's little to no "social distancing" anymore, not at Costco or any number of stores and businesses across the states. Millions of people are interacting daily. There is no containment.

Then it's completely irrelevant for Tesla. The problem is there's no social distancing at Costco.

Again you're missing the point. Costco was a single example. There is no effective social distancing across most of California and hasn't been for weeks.

Given that reality, it's strange to block Tesla from opening, especially when work is voluntary and with careful safety guidelines. What exactly is the continued shutdown of this facility accomplishing?

The point was understood - just not well taken, because the entire argument is a "tu quoque" fallacy.

In any case, I question if you have any evidence of the claim there is no effective social distancing.

You can literally go outside and see for yourself.

> Executive orders that deprive natural rights are unconstitutional and thus illegal.

This may be a reference to the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [1] which may be protected by the 10th amendment to the US constitution [3] (reserving rights ... to the people) and the due process clauses [4] from the 5th and 14th amendments to the US constitution.

> Which right gives you the ability to operate your business during a pandemic?

Since "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" [4], the proper questions may instead be: What law gives government the power to close down businesses during a pandemic and was due process followed in the passage and execution of that law?

Arguably, the shelter in place orders may or may not be constitutional. Practically speaking, telling people to stay home for a few weeks using the threat of the shelter in place orders most likely helped the medical community get a grip on the situation, regardless of the constitutionality of those orders, which may explain the lack of resistance in passing those orders. However, at what point is "the cure ... worse than the disease" [5], i.e., at what point will the overall net net net effect of maintaining the shelter in place orders be worse than rescinding those orders?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_... (citing to [2])

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

[5] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_cure_is_worse_than_the_di...

It's sad that Natural Rights is a dying concept among the modern intelligentsia. I hope it does not result in tyranny.

I actually hope the ‘interim Health Officer’ attempts to physically close or shutdown the factory, because that would set off a spectacular legal challenge that the county would most definitely lose. I think they'll drop the case before it has a chance to set back the powers of their unilateral decisions.

(The parent comment is flagged. Truly amazing times we live in where simply reminding people of their rights is reason to censor.)

Judge Napolitano says Elon has a very good shot at winning this lawsuit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com