Pandemic bill allows health authorities to enter homes, detain without warrant

dammitgibs

Senior member
Jan 31, 2009
477
0
0
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108604

Massachusetts' pandemic response bill

"Pandemic Response Bill" 2028 was passed by the Massachusetts state Senate on April 28 and is now awaiting approval in the House.

As stated in the bill, upon declaration by the governor that an emergency exists that is considered detrimental to public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency, a local public health authority, with approval of the commissioner, may exercise the following authorities (emphasis added):

* to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;

* to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;

* to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;

* to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;

* to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;

* to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;

* to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;

* to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;

* to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;

* to waive the commonwealth's licensing requirements for health care professionals with a valid license from another state in the United States or whose professional training would otherwise qualify them for an appropriate professional license in the commonwealth;

* to allow for the dispensing of controlled substance by appropriate personnel consistent with federal statutes as necessary for the prevention or treatment of illness;

* to authorize the chief medical examiner to appoint and prescribe the duties of such emergency assistant medical examiners as may be required for the proper performance of the duties of office;

* to collect specimens and perform tests on any animal, living or deceased;

* to exercise authority under sections 95 and 96 of chapter 111;

* to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit, with the consent of the individuals

State and local agencies responding to the public health emergency would be required to exercise their powers over transportation routes, communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing and shelter, according to the legislation.

I'm kinda suspect of this website, seems like a conservative huffingtonpost, but just because I can't find talk of this bill on any major news website doesn't necessarily mean it's not real and doesn't have the implications they're saying. My big question is what kind of power does the government have now to control a pandemic? And I would think less of this if it wasn't in the middle of the whole swine flu scare, seems like they're using that to pass a patriot act type bill, maybe we could call it the "health act" so it sounds good and doesn't get angry whitey riled up.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
How would a state get to override the constitution? amazing

It doesn't matter, it's for the good of us. didn't you see the reasoning of transaction tax in the other thread. As long as it's for the good of us and/or society, then it's perfectly fine.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: blackangst1
How would a state get to override the constitution? amazing

It doesn't matter, it's for the good of us. didn't you see the reasoning of transaction tax in the other thread. As long as it's for the good of us and/or society, then it's perfectly fine.

Well then dammit. I must be an anarchist.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: blackangst1
How would a state get to override the constitution? amazing

It doesn't matter, it's for the good of us. didn't you see the reasoning of transaction tax in the other thread. As long as it's for the good of us and/or society, then it's perfectly fine.

Don't spread hyperbole please.

You are Constitutionally protected from illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. You are not Constitutionally protected from taxation.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
How would a state get to override the constitution? amazing

When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights. That's kind of the whole point in making such a Declaration, meaning that Normal Operating Procedures are no longer in effect.

Laws/Procedures like in the OP could be avoided if Citizens just acted Responsibly. Most do, but it seems to be a growing Minority that refuses to do so for various Paranoid reasons. If a truly serious Pandemic/Epidemic were to occur, such Powers can be the difference between containing an Outbreak or losing Millions of Lives due to an Outbreak.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: blackangst1
How would a state get to override the constitution? amazing

It doesn't matter, it's for the good of us. didn't you see the reasoning of transaction tax in the other thread. As long as it's for the good of us and/or society, then it's perfectly fine.

Well then dammit. I must be an anarchist.

Nope, you're a right wing terrorist.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,493
9,714
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Would you be arguing to imply that our rights cannot be taken away? Perhaps you mean they shouldn't be, but such is the case of emergencies.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes, really.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- US DoI
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Would you be arguing to imply that our rights cannot be taken away? Perhaps you mean they shouldn't be, but such is the case of emergencies.

I certainly would never argue that our rights cannot be taken away, we willfully give them up quite often.

Willfully giving up your rights in times of "emergencies" only motivates government to create or exaggerate "emergencies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes really. The Constitution doesn't GIVE us rights. They are already ours.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes, really.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- US DoI

So what's your Point? Seems to me you're making the Fail argument, that being the utter uselessness of the Constitution. I propose that you are mistaking the Flowery Language of the preamble with a Mystic belief. If the FF/Authors were alive today, I think they may have used the much more efficient vernacular, "Duh" and :Q come to mind.

So what do you say, eliminate the 2nd Amendment?
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes really. The Constitution doesn't GIVE us rights. They are already ours.

Bullshit. You had the pure dumb luck to be born in America in this era. You could've been a literal slave in a South African diamond mine digging up rocks to put on some wise and beautiful woman's finger. You're not special. Get the fuck over yourself.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes, really.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- US DoI

So what's your Point? Seems to me you're making the Fail argument, that being the utter uselessness of the Constitution. I propose that you are mistaking the Flowery Language of the preamble with a Mystic belief. If the FF/Authors were alive today, I think they may have used the much more efficient vernacular, "Duh" and :Q come to mind.

So what do you say, eliminate the 2nd Amendment?

Do you not understand the use of the word "Creator?"
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes, really.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- US DoI

So what's your Point? Seems to me you're making the Fail argument, that being the utter uselessness of the Constitution. I propose that you are mistaking the Flowery Language of the preamble with a Mystic belief. If the FF/Authors were alive today, I think they may have used the much more efficient vernacular, "Duh" and :Q come to mind.

So what do you say, eliminate the 2nd Amendment?

Do you not understand the use of the word "Creator?"

Do you not know a fairy tale when you hear it? It's awfully convenient, that "divine right" thing.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: JKing106
Do you not know a fairy tale when you hear it? It's awfully convenient, that "divine right" thing.

:roll:

The word "Creator" was not used in this context to mean "Christian God," or any other God or supreme being. It was used because it can mean what the reader wishes it to mean, be that their God, or the ground, or whatever or wherever they believe to be the origin of life.

Our rights are not granted by government, we are born with them. And it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Government is to recognize and protect those rights.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
When an "Emergency" is declared, I believe that there is at least a partial suspension of Constitutional Rights.

That would imply that the Constitution gives us our rights, and that is not the case.

Really?

Yes, really.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- US DoI

So what's your Point? Seems to me you're making the Fail argument, that being the utter uselessness of the Constitution. I propose that you are mistaking the Flowery Language of the preamble with a Mystic belief. If the FF/Authors were alive today, I think they may have used the much more efficient vernacular, "Duh" and :Q come to mind.

So what do you say, eliminate the 2nd Amendment?

Do you not understand the use of the word "Creator?"

Do you? If the Constitution grants nothing, then why don't all the Rights listed in it just exist everywhere? Why write it at all?

The reason is pretty simple and obvious: It's because it does grant those Rights. Take away the Constitution(or other Document), take away the Rights.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: JKing106
Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes really. The Constitution doesn't GIVE us rights. They are already ours.

Bullshit. You had the pure dumb luck to be born in America in this era. You could've been a literal slave in a South African diamond mine digging up rocks to put on some wise and beautiful woman's finger. You're not special. Get the fuck over yourself.

Are you seriously that dense? It's a belief that those people have the same rights that we do, the difference is their government does not recognize or protect their rights.

Look, anything the state gives, the state can also take away. If the only reason we have our rights is because they are written on a piece of paper, well that paper can be torn to shreds at any time.
 

Underclocked

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,042
1
76
bamacre, that is also my understanding and has been the understanding of many that have given their lives for this country of ours. Far too many are willing to concede to the government that which was never intended to be theirs.

America is being destroyed from within.

Uselessness of the Constitution? Leave.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: Underclocked
bamacre, that is also my understanding and has been the understanding of many that have given their lives for this country of ours. Far too many are willing to concede to the government that which was never intended to be theirs.

America is being destroyed from within.

Uselessness of the Constitution? Leave.

So if there is a pandemic sweeping the land nothing should be done to stop it? People should be allowed to travel anywhere they want?

What about domestic wiretapping and torture? Aren't the values that we hold dear worth the risk of civilian lives to uphold those values and not torture?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,493
9,714
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Do you not understand the use of the word "Creator?"

Do you? If the Constitution grants nothing, then why don't all the Rights listed in it just exist everywhere? Why write it at all?

We would rather our god given rights be written in ink than in blood.

The reason is pretty simple and obvious: It's because it does grant those Rights. Take away the Constitution(or other Document), take away the Rights.

Not exactly, refer to the previous statement.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
Do you? If the Constitution grants nothing, then why don't all the Rights listed in it just exist everywhere?

They do. But the governments may or may not recognize and/or promise to protect those rights.
 

Underclocked

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,042
1
76
Did I say or in any way suggest that NOTHING should be done to stop it? One mistake does not justify another.