Doesn't matter here because Hawaii is a Democrat Party ruled state, but someone gets it right!

https://magainstitute.com/boom-florida-court-rules-mask-mandates-unconstitutional/

 

The issue as I see it is, these rulings limit what government can do.  But the government can easily convince private businesses and property owners to implement unconstitutional rules for the majority of people.  Just like 1A is being subverted by big tech in support of Democrats, mask mandates can be implemented by restaurants, schools, and stores in order to qualify for special financial incentives or prevent loss of existing incentives.

Big brother has become quite adept at using unions and corporations to do their dirty work.

Good example of unconstitutional here in this great free State of HI is the DOH placard system. A 'health inspector' can enter any food establishment unannounced to "inspect". They have the authority to shut down any food establishment that they see unfit. No trial. No jury. Just rules.
No one is pushing back against this - we just accept it like all other things "for the greater good"

Good example of unconstitutional here in this great free State of HI is the DOH placard system. A 'health inspector' can enter any food establishment unannounced to "inspect". They have the authority to shut down any food establishment that they see unfit. No trial. No jury. Just rules.
No one is pushing back against this - we just accept it like all other things "for the greater good"

There are safety concerns in many businesses that require a license.  Barbershops, beauty salons, restaurants and any other business which can spread disease through unsanitary practices or the failure to follow known standards to avoid contamination & growth of diseases are a public health concern.

Shutting down a restaurant for health code violations is not normally the first thing an inspector does.  They usually give the business notice to correct the violations in a given number of days.  If the infractions are not corrected, the place can be shut down upon re-inspection.  Only if the violations are serious enough will the place be closed.  Many sub-par places are allowed to operate, but the restaurant has to display the grade they received from the inspector which can negatively affect business.

I've seen restaurants shut down after an employee was found to be infected with a disease that customers contracted.  In that case, preventing more cases of salmonella, e-coli or other food poisoning outweighs the business' right to remain open.  That's not normally an "inspection" issue, but it's in the same realm of government power to shut a business down.

I think some restaurants thumb their nose at the food safety rules.  They do the minimum to pass the inspection, but then have another failure soon after.  Customers rarely get to see what goes on in the store room or kitchen, so we need someone to ensure food safety standards are being followed.

This is one area of government oversight of private business I think has merit for the public at large.

There are safety concerns in many businesses that require a license.  Barbershops, beauty salons, restaurants and any other business which can spread disease through unsanitary practices or the failure to follow known standards to avoid contamination & growth of diseases are a public health concern.

Shutting down a restaurant for health code violations is not normally the first thing an inspector does.  They usually give the business notice to correct the violations in a given number of days.  If the infractions are not corrected, the place can be shut down upon re-inspection.  Only if the violations are serious enough will the place be closed.  Many sub-par places are allowed to operate, but the restaurant has to display the grade they received from the inspector which can negatively affect business.

I've seen restaurants shut down after an employee was found to be infected with a disease that customers contracted.  In that case, preventing more cases of salmonella, e-coli or other food poisoning outweighs the business' right to remain open.  That's not normally an "inspection" issue, but it's in the same realm of government power to shut a business down.

I think some restaurants thumb their nose at the food safety rules.  They do the minimum to pass the inspection, but then have another failure soon after.  Customers rarely get to see what goes on in the store room or kitchen, so we need someone to ensure food safety standards are being followed.

This is one area of government oversight of private business I think has merit for the public at large.

I disagree. I think it is a clear violation of the 4th. To enter a private business without a warrant or reasonable suspicion to "inspect" with the authority to shut it down.. The authority to shut down a business is based on one inspector's interpretation. The issue of public safety is so broad and can be used in other businesses as well. I haven't seen any supermarkets shut down over food storage - nor do I see any kind of placard system.

I disagree. I think it is a clear violation of the 4th. To enter a private business without a warrant or reasonable suspicion to "inspect" with the authority to shut it down.. The authority to shut down a business is based on one inspector's interpretation. The issue of public safety is so broad and can be used in other businesses as well. I haven't seen any supermarkets shut down over food storage - nor do I see any kind of placard system.

Public safety.  You can't poison customers.   To get a license means you agree to the terms.   Those are the terms,  you are free not to engage in that business if you do not want those terms.  4th does not apply.

Doesn't matter here because Hawaii is a Democrat Party ruled state, but someone gets it right!

https://magainstitute.com/boom-florida-court-rules-mask-mandates-unconstitutional/

 

Supreme Court had ruled in the past it's allowable.

Supreme Court had ruled in the past it's allowable.

Which supreme court?
The one that made the Dred Scott decision or the Democrat Hawaiian one that
stops legitimate projects like TMT?

Which supreme court?
The one that made the Dred Scott decision or the Democrat Hawaiian one that
stops legitimate projects like TMT?

The federal one.