not being deprived of liberty is mentioned multiple times

It is mentioned twice, in the 5th and. the 14th amendmenst.


5th

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


14th

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



So, what it says is, your liberty (freedom) can not be taken without due process of law. Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decision maker.

Substantive due process is a principle allowing courts to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference. Courts have identified the basis for such protection from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarcates the line between the acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and the acts that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference.

That is a long way to say, although I would argue in court that mask mandates are a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments. I do not see any court saying that a mandate to wear a mask is the state depriving you of your liberty.

Alabama Emergency Management Act of 1955

https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2016/title-31/chapter-9/article-1/

Here is the other issue, You don't just get to say something is unconstitutional so you don't have to abide by it. In order to challenge a law as unconstitutional, you have file a legal challenge (either through filing a lawsuit in equity) or challenging a criminal charge after you are arrested and charged with a crime.

By the way, there was a lawsuit filed by 3 people from Jackson county challenging t e mask mandate. The lawsuit was thrown out by the trial court. As far as I know, it has not been appealed at this time.

If these mandates were really unconstitutional, do you not think that some constitutional law experts would be jumping up and down and filing petitions everywhere they could to challenge them?

What about the state law that makes it illegal to wear a mask in public places?
Can the the state heath dept just override a state law at will?
What if the state health department decides its unsafe to carry anything other than a fully automatic machine gun???
What if the state health department decides its unsafe to birth more than one child?
What if the state health department decides its unsafe to drink beer?

Yeah, I figured that would be the argument...but at least I got you to admit that liberty was mentioned when you initially tried to just make me look stupid by saying it's not. Just b/c an argument can be made that the there is a legal avenue to require a mask mandate, doesn't mean that it's the way that the federal government should move, it may be legal, but it flies in the face of freedom and liberty. But again, how are they going to enforce a federal mandate? DHS, ATF, FBI? I mean cities are letting violent rioters off with nothing, you really mean to tell me they are going to press charges or fines on not wearing a mask...and have the police enforce it - who they are trying to defund? Give me a freaking break. I get that you are looking at it from a purely legal language standpoint, but what in the f happened to common sense. If people want to wear a mask, wear a mask, if not then don't. If you are concerned, then don't put yourself in a position where you can't social distance. Simple as that. I've been living my life as normal pretty much and not once have I felt like I was putting myself or anyone else in some major risk of corona. Obviously, I could come down with it tomorrow, that's how viruses work. In some cities/states(ie NYC), maybe a local mandate does make sense, but don't shove it down everyone's throat on a nationwide level.

Also, I'm not attacking you by any means, I appreciate your input and enjoy the back and forth you give on topics - even if you may not

Yeah, for the record, I'm not disagreeing with doekiller. I very much appreciate his input here.
I'm just playing Devil's advocate and asking questions, "what if they push further"?

I wasn't trying to make you loos stupid. A lot of people think the constitution says they have a right to liberty, when it doesn't say that. The Declaration of Independence says "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." It is often confused with something in the constitution.

I have no idea who or how it would be enforced and don't think federal law enforcement would be any more inclined to try to enforce it than the local police are.

I always enjoy back in forth with anyone who doesn't simply start calling me names when I disagree with them.

I enjoyed my day in Cullman yesterday when no one looked at my funny for going in places without a mask.

I did see a video of a good old boy who was yelling about his constitutional rights being violated by wearing a mask. When ask in a calm manner which amendment was being violated, he responded "the other one, not the one about guns." There is an entire segment of our population that only knows the 2nd amendment is about guns and nothing else.

Well, you have to admit, it's no worse than a Joe Biden response.
"it's the other one, you know! Come on man, the thing, you know, yeah"!

There is a twitter page called bad legal takes, it is hilarious what people will declare the law to be on social media and think they are 100% correct. They post peoples declarations of the law, both liberal and conservative that are some of the dumbest things you will ever read. When Trump was talking about sending federal troops to cities, there were hundreds of 3rd amendment experts all the sudden. Which was nice for the 3rd amendment, I'm sure it has spent the last 200 plus years wishing someone would talk about it like they do all the other parts of the constitution.

I've started using, "Come on Man" as often as I can.

Well you know, if it wasn't for legal ignorant folks like us(and law breakers), you would be out of a job!

I've always said, there's only two commodities, in the world, where supply drives demand. Lawyers and hookers! 😉
Reckon it's coincidence that they both screw people for money? 😂

The commiecrats plan is to pin the China flu deaths on Trump, that's why the numbers are being inflated.

My response above was obviously in jest, but I do have a serious question regarding the masks Doekiller.

If a person has an exempted condition under the Guvners illegal mandate, is it a violation of a person's rights to be refused service in an establishment? Wouldn't the Americans with Disabilities act govern in this situation, and could legal action be taken against an establishment in this situation? Would this be only a civil matter or are there criminal violations?

Just remember if mask can be dictated as a national health emergency for people that are not "covid 19 positive" and there is a penalty fee or imprisonment. What will stop a national health emergency to confiscate guns because Chicago, New York, LA, NO, Atlanta can't control shootings? NO different, small percentage of impact from the "national Health emergency" controls what the VAST majority of citizens do. The government boot is a very heavy weight!!

Might as call me an outlaw......William H. Bonney