Logically speaking that is 100% correct since if example 'a' is essential then ALL others must be considered to be exactly the same.
You cannot expect to have one without including ALL others now can you?

@Imatheistically Don't know about where you come from BUT here in Australia we now have Distilleries changing tack and turn to making Hand Sanitiser instead of booze.
Now that IS what I call Community spirit.

Errr, sorry but 'weed' is not a food-stuff nor is it essential.
It IS merely a recreational device, nothing more, nothing less UNLESS it IS required by a person/patient and prescribed by a recognised Medical Practioner to treat symptoms, etc, of Cancers, etc, etc.

@Triphid Thanks dad. I'll bet you're a lot of fun at a party.

@Sgt_Spanky I got to parties BUT parties do NOT need drugs to be fun places in case you are unware of that fact.

@Sgt_Spanky you don't have to be goofed or numb (high or drunk) to have fun at parties. You would surely like to "remember" a fun party too.

@TimeOutForMe I drink/smoke weed only socially. That means I often go months doing neither. There are degrees between falling down drunk and teetotaling sobriety. I indulge several times a year at best but when I do indulge, I enjoy it.

@Sgt_Spanky You don't need to justify your activity to these commies. "Essential & Non-Essential" were used because they are vague. Govt can make arbitrary rules for corporations, because they control all of them.

The people, on the other hand, control govt and are not subject to vague, arbitrary edicts. Govt knows this. Which is why govt is only enforcing on corporations and the uber poor. They don't want to be sued and removed from office.

@TheMiddleWay Unfortunately you are right and that's why different States will have different levels of infection.

@TheMiddleWay The people.

@TheMiddleWay Time to brush up on your constitution. Thats what.

10th - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

@TheMiddleWay Like I said, the people.

@TheMiddleWay Not at all. It is against govts charter to make laws violating peoples rights to peacefully assemble.

Also, if you paid attention to case cite precedent; which it's clear you don't. You would know that the courts have ruled on these matters already.

Supremacy clause anyone?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[7]."

You're trying to sound smart, but YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

@TheMiddleWay Then there's the Ninth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. It says that all the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. 

Also people gathering for church is not business.

Like I said. The people.

@TheMiddleWay What you're saying is that states are all powerful and can create and take away rights as long as they don't "countermand" the federal govts edicts.

That is not what I or the constitution say.

The people have the power. I am on point. You are moving the goal post. We are talking specifically about wheter any govt can label a church gathering as essential or nonessential. The constitution clearly puts forth the position that govt shall not violate the peoples right to peacably assemble.

My work here is now done.

@TheMiddleWay actually, I am not. I see you are running out of ammo and are now resorting to just trying to have the last word no matter how meaningless the point is.

I will just end by saying that you are as incorrect as ever. Right now lawsuits are already being filed regarding this very issue.

If you google Cross Culture Christian Center you will find an example of at least one legal scholar who says exactly what I am saying.

Have fun moving that goal post, buddy.

@TheMiddleWay I suppose you failed to read the title of the thread that you posted?

I've never seen someone try to move a goal post so far in an attempt to make themselves seem correct.

You posted:
States Consider Whether Religious Services Qualify As 'Essential' : Coronavirus Live Updates : NPR

I posted:
The States would be outside of their jurisdiction.

You replied: Confused. As long as it doesn't countermand federal regulation, isn't it exactly within states rights to determine essential and non-essential for their area?

The point?

You are wrong. Moving the goal post. A rational person would concede the point that states and other people who call themselves government cannot make arbitrary rules that violate the very charter that creates their positions.

The constitutions clearly state that people have a RIGHT to peacefully assemble. That is a federal mandate from the federal constitution. It "countermands" a states right to make an arbitrary rule limiting this right.

The courts concur, even though you claim they do not, by ruling in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that directs all state jurisdiction that "the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land."

There is nothing further to discuss here.

@TheMiddleWay

YOU said:
"I'm talking about state v. federal right to determine essential v. non-essential."

Prior to this comment YOU POSTED:
States Consider Whether Religious Services Qualify As 'Essential' : Coronavirus Live Updates : NPR

YOU posted:
"You continue wanting to talk about gatherings and churches."

Again..... YOU POSTED:
States Consider Whether Religious Services Qualify As 'Essential' : Coronavirus Live Updates : NPR

((GOAL POST MOVED))

ME:
I talked about it because it's in the title of the thread. I am on point, and so are you. You are simply incorrect in your conclusion that the state would have jurisdiction to determine peoples right to gather for any peaceful reason, religious, essential or not. Both state and federal govt is outside of it's jurisdiction on the matter that YOU POSTED.

The Proofs:
This is due to the 1st, 9th & 10th amendment, as well as the supremacy clause handed down in 1803 (you claimed it has not been brought up by legal scholars, a false claim).

The matter is well decided. You brought up the matter in the title of the topic. Then you changed it in the body of our debate to be about essential v non-essential. They can determine anything they want, for govt employees, not the people.

@TheMiddleWay

YOUR POST:
States Consider Whether RELIGIOUS SERVICES QUALIFY AS ESSENTIAL' : Coronavirus Live Updates : NPR

"You can claim otherwise all you want but the fact the states are doing it with the federal governments blessing proves your claims of unconstitutionality of states determining what is essential or not demonstrably false, demonstrated by the fact the states are doing it with no constitutional challenges."

Again, you clearly do not read court cite precedent. The above statements are clear evidence of that. States have always made unconstitutional laws and them implemented them for months or years before they are found to be unconstitutional. The fact that this has not happened in this case, yet, proves absolutely nothing, except in your mind.

You are as wrong now as when you started.

As far as control over businesses in general, that is extremely simple and again, has been ruled on repeatedly going back to the 1800's.

"("The corporation is completely a creature of a state, and it is usually within the function of the creator to say how the creature shall be brought before judicial tribunals." ); City of Trenton v. State of New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923)"

("[T]he corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.) Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75 (1906)

@TheMiddleWay

Well how long does it take to rule something unconstitutional? A week? A month?

Also, no laws have been passed. The only thing that has been issued are executive orders, which apply to the executive branch only, not the people.

Your understanding of how the courts work is novice at best. But I will leave you with these gems.

"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal",
VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348,41 S. Ct. 116
(1920)

A void judgment is one which fiom its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null. without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree – Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).

There are a lot more of these with much stronger language, but I will let you do some research. It appears you need it.

@TheMiddleWay One more...

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

@TheMiddleWay Many of these emergency declarations have closed schools, limited public gatherings, and limited restaurant activities to take out or delivery."

Schools are govt operated. They can be closed.

But notice that public gatherings are simply "limited". They cannot be stopped lawfully.

Lawsuits are already pending, and they will most certainly win a lot of the cases where govt officials have overstepped their delegated abilities.

Nice try.

@TheMiddleWay WOW.