UPDATE....
Update on Atilis Gym in Belmawr, NJ.
Gov. Murphy had the water shut off at Atilis Gym and placed an EMBARGO against the property.. He is seizing their assets!! pic.twitter.com/4jNFTV8noH— Sandy Schneider (@sandyaschneider) May 23, 2020
Posted on 05/21/2020 6:27:39 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
Target and Verizon are probably closed for other reasons, because I’m pretty sure both of those stores are allowed to open in PA.
those *pigs* you refer to showed the gym owner a great deal of deference on the first encounter. The local cops and police chief showed a lot of heart IMHO.
...nice place you got here. Be a shame if somethin' was to happen.
General uprising needs to occur in the Blue States. Those whose wish to be Torries can continue to be servants of the State.
Heil Adolf Murphy!
The federal government seems to control an awful lot of stuff. And everything the feds don’t control, the states can control.We are no longer a free society. At all.
The State police power is such as has been given to it by the People of the State. It varies by State. The People of the State can restrict the power by amending their state constitution or by state legislation.
Where a governor exceeds the authority given by State law, the courts can enjoin the action of the governor. Generally, it is not a matter of Federal constitutional law. It is sort of like bitching about the income tax. The People amended the Constititution just to give the power of an unapportioned income tax to the Federal government. When a power is given, it can be used for good or bad purpose, wisely or stupidly. The People tend to realize what they did when their grant of power is used unwisely against them for some stupid purpose. Using a granted power unwisely and stupidly does not necessarily make the use unlawful. Power, once given, is hard to claw back.
Those pigs should just leave business owners alone. Period. They should have never shown up. Tyranny is tyranny whether pigs are nice and show deference or not. Apparently it is acceptable to too many people to have a boot on their neck (metaphorically speaking) while given a smile. I guess they think being nice is more important that protecting the constitution. The nice thing to do is fight real crime and leave innocent citizens alone.
How Antifa of you.
OR
They ran out of toilet paper because the members stole it all and then used whatever paper goods were in reach.
They are getting off easy. A church in MS was set on fire.
They are getting off easy. A church in MS was set on fire.
______________________________________________________
People need to cancel the Karens, the Anty Fas and retake their state governments. The Courts don’t work, although DJT is trying to make them do so.
This is a 5th Amendment violation, but the response needs to be from the mass of the people ignoring it until it is crystal clear who the terrorists really are.
It will take guts. They are not above false flag responses that appear to originate with the protestors.
Not sure how much backbone still exists, but the tyrants are treading on millions of last nerves.
Far from it. Do not insult me, you'll get it back in spades. You need an education in the US Constitution. You must be another one of these Karens that is afraid of their own shadow. You are part of the problem, closet fascist. Grow a backbone.
These are innocent people being deprived of their constitutional and God given rights. No one is forcing anyone to go to that gym. They are doing what is completely normal for real Americans. When people side with these pigs they are giving more power to those that want to take away real Americans' freedom and liberty. These pigs are following orders in a very nice way, not too much pressure, but all the same they are following unconstitutional orders. I guess it is okay with you to have your rights, your income, and your freedoms taken away as long as it is done with a smiley face. These pigs should be fighting real crime instead of depriving citizens their rights. They are the problem. Start calling them out on it or you are part of the problem.
I agree with every point that you make except for your reference to LEO as “pigs.” How DU of you.
You are nothing more than a passive-aggressive Karen. How DU of me? Screw you. I was being nice calling them pigs. They are far worse. And I will refrain from calling you what I really think of you.
Having been in the damage restoration business many years ago, liability for a sewer backup is on whatever sewer district that services the gym, so the city is going to have to pay.
There is a very important distinction between a sewer backup and a plugged drain.
Regardless of what or how individual state constitutions are written .. States are subject to the U.S. Constitution, same as the feds!
The People did not give the police power to the Federal government. They reserved that power and have given it to the States. The State police power varies by State.
Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25-29 (1905)
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given, or secured by the Constitution, is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned." Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R. R., 27 Vermont, 140, 148. In Crowley v Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, we said:"The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law." In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780 it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for "the common good," and that government is instituted "for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men." The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.
Applying these principles to the present case, it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body; and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a Board of Health, composed of persons residing in the locality affected and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual nor an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. It is to be observed that when the regulation in question was adopted, smallpox, according to the recitals in the regulation adopted by the Board of Health, was prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge and the disease was increasing. If such was the situation—and nothing is asserted or appears in the record to the contrary—if we are to attach any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, is common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the Board of Health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety. Smallpox being prevalent and increasing' at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large, was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case, because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. Wisconsin &c. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 301; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., 4th ed., §§ 319 to 325, and authorities in notes; Freund's Police Power, § 63 et seq. In Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471-473, this court recognized the right of a State to pass sanitary laws, laws for the protection of life, liberty, health or property within its limits, laws to prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, from coming within its borders. But as the laws there6 involved went beyond the necessity of the case and under the guise of exerting a police power invaded the domain of Federal authority and violated rights secured by the Constitution, this court deemed it to be its duty to hold such laws invalid. If the mode adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient or objectionable to some—if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question—the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few. There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great, dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.
Louisiana v Texas, 176 US 1, 21 (1900)
Provision was made for the detention of persons, and vessels, and for the disinfection of vessels and their cargoes and passengers arriving at the ports of Texas from any infected port. or district, and for rules and regulations in regard thereto, "the object of such rules and regulations being to provide safety for the public health of the State without unnecessary restriction upon commerce and travel."It is not charged that this statute is invalid nor could it be if tested by its terms. While it is true that the power vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the States is a power complete in itself, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the Constitution, and that where the action of the States in the exercise of their reserved powers comes into collision with it, the latter must give way, yet it is also true that quarantine laws belong to that class of state legislation which is valid until displaced by Congress, and that such legislation has been expressly recognized by the laws of the United States almost from the beginning of the Government.
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/PL05/222_.PDF
NJ Emergency Health Powers Act, PL 2005, c 222 (S2085 4R)
Excerpt
C.26:13-8 Powers of commissioner relative to facilities, property; hearing.8. During a state of public health emergency, the commissioner may exercise the following powers over facilities or property:
a. Facilities. To close, direct and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, any facility of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it may endanger the public health.
(1) Concurrent with or within 24 hours of decontamination or closure of a facility, the commissioner shall provide the facility with a written order notifying the facility of:
(a) the premises designated for decontamination or closure;
(b) the date and time at which the decontamination or closure will commence;
(c) a statement of the terms and conditions of the decontamination or closure;
(d) a statement of the basis upon which the decontamination or closure is justified; and
(e) the availability of a hearing to contest a closure order of a health care facility, as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) A health care facility subject to a closure order pursuant to this section may request a hearing in the Superior Court to contest the order.
Upon receiving a request for a hearing, the court shall fix a date for a hearing. The hearing shall be held within 72 hours of receipt of the request by the court, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. The court may proceed in a summary manner. At the hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the commissioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the health care facility poses a threat to the public health and the closure order issued by the commissioner is warranted to address the threat.
(3) If, upon a hearing, the court finds that the closure of the health care facility is not warranted, the facility shall be released immediately from the closure order and reopened.
(4) The manner in which the request for a hearing pursuant to this subsection is filed and acted upon shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court.
b. Property. To decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or destroy, subject to the payment of reasonable costs as provided for in sections 24 and 25 of this act, any material of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it may endanger the public health.
c. In instances involving an overlap agent or toxin that causes a public health emergency, the department and the Department of Agriculture shall be responsible for their roles under their respective jurisdictions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.26:13-9 Powers of commissioner relative to health care, other facilities, property, roads, public areas.
9. During a state of public health emergency, the commissioner may exercise, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, the following powers concerning health care and other facilities, property, roads, or public areas:
a. Use of property and facilities. To procure, by condemnation or otherwise, subject to the payment of reasonable costs as provided for in sections 24 and 25 of this act, construct, lease, transport, store, maintain, renovate or distribute property and facilities as may be reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency, with the right to take immediate possession thereof. Such property and facilities include, but are not limited to, communication devices, carriers, real estate, food and clothing. This authority shall also include the ability to accept and manage those goods and services donated for the purpose of responding to a public health emergency. The authority provided to the commissioner pursuant to this section shall not affect the existing authority or emergency response of other State agencies.
b. Use of health care facilities.
(1) To require, subject to the payment of reasonable costs as provided for in sections 24 and 25 of this act, a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility if such services or use are reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency, as a condition of licensure, authorization or the ability to continue doing business in the State as a health care facility. After consultation with the management of the health care facility, the commissioner may determine that the use of the facility may include transferring the management and supervision of the facility to the commissioner for a limited or unlimited period of time, but shall not exceed the duration of the public health emergency. In the event of such a transfer, the commissioner shall use the existing management of the health care facility.
(2) Concurrent with or within 24 hours of the transfer of the management and supervision of a health care facility, the commissioner shall provide the facility with a written order notifying the facility of:
(a) the premises designated for transfer;
(b) the date and time at which the transfer will commence;
(c) a statement of the terms and condition of the transfer;
(d) a statement of the basis upon which the transfer is justified; and
(e) the availability of a hearing to contest the order, as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(3) A health care facility subject to an order to transfer management and supervision to the commissioner pursuant to this section may request a hearing in the Superior Court to contest the order.
(a) Upon receiving a request for a hearing, the court shall fix a date for a hearing. The hearing shall be held within 72 hours of receipt of the request by the court, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. The court may proceed in a summary manner. At the hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the commissioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer of the management and supervision of the health care facility is reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency and the order issued by the commissioner is warranted to address the need.
(b) If, upon a hearing, the court finds that the transfer of the management and supervision of the health care facility is not warranted, the facility shall be released immediately from the transfer order.
(c) The manner in which the request for a hearing pursuant to this subsection is filed and acted upon shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court.
(4) A health care facility which provides services or the use of its facility or whose management or supervision is transferred to the commissioner pursuant to this subsection shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of the commissioner's acts or omissions in providing medical care or treatment or any other services related to the public health emergency.
(5) For the duration of a state of public health emergency, the commissioner shall confer with the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance to request that the Department of Banking and Insurance waive regulations requiring compliance by a health care provider or health care facility with a managed care plan's administrative protocols, including but not limited to, prior authorization and pre-certification.
c. Control of property. To inspect, control, restrict, and regulate by rationing and using quotas, prohibitions on shipments, allocation or other means, the use, sale, dispensing, distribution or transportation of food, clothing and other commodities, as may be reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency.
d. To identify areas that are or may be dangerous to the public health and to recommend to the Governor and the Attorney General that movement of persons within that area be restricted, if such action is reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency.
Update on Atilis Gym in Belmawr, NJ.
Gov. Murphy had the water shut off at Atilis Gym and placed an EMBARGO against the property.. He is seizing their assets!! pic.twitter.com/4jNFTV8noH— Sandy Schneider (@sandyaschneider) May 23, 2020
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.