Elon Musk: Lockdowns unconstitutional, threatens to pull Tesla out of California

Guest “I can’t believe I’m praising Tony Stark Elon Musk” by David Middleton

Elon Musk Tells Joe Rogan: Lockdowns Are ‘Unconstitutional’

by LUCAS NOLAN 9 May 2020

During a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Experience, Tesla CEO Elon Musk called recent Wuhan coronavirus shelter-in-place orders “unconstitutional” just days after reports appeared implying that Tesla’s Fremont plant may begin production again soon in violation of lockdown orders.



Musk threatens to move Tesla operations as company sues California county

UPI 9 May 2020

May 9 (UPI) — Tesla filed a lawsuit Saturday against Alameda County, Calif., where its factories are located, over ongoing restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and CEO Elon Musk threatened to move the company’s headquarters and operations out of California.

Musk wanted to resume vehicle production at Tesla’s Fremont, Calif., factory Friday afternoon, but Alameda County’s interim public health officer said the company is not yet authorized to do so as health orders to contain a coronavirus outbreak in the region are still intact.



Give ’em Hell Tony Elon!

After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world

President Calvin Coolidge, January 17, 1925
Let’s get on with it!!!

181 thoughts on “Elon Musk: Lockdowns unconstitutional, threatens to pull Tesla out of California

    • gone….

      Elon Musk
      Replying to

      Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA.


    • It’s not that he has seen the limitations of leftist ideology, it’s more that he’s upset that he is no longer benefiting from it.

      • You are correct…Elon is or Elon…he is not really for anything that threatens Elon….for instance, he doesn’t care if a coal powered electric plant supplies the electricity for his Teslas.

        • Elon…he is not really for anything that threatens Elon

          I think that attitude is referred to as “survival”.

  1. Were any of Elon Musk’s recent public tweets approved by the Tesla Board of Directors prior to their releases. If not, don’t they violate the SEC agreement that was conditioned as part of the settlement with Tesla for Mr. Musk’s prior “Funding secured” tweet that was found to basically amount to market manipulation by a company insider?

    I would say that tweets about (1) definitely moving Tesla’s headquarters, and (2) intention to file a lawsuit against the county government in which Tesla’s main automobile manufacturing plant is located, (3) defining the two states where the manufacturing plant may be relocated, and (4) conditioning the manufacturing plant move on future “treatment” by the State of California, ALL constituent insider information that is materially relevant to the company’s stock value (real and perceived) and that none of which was public knowledge prior to Musk’s release, thus each being a violation of SEC regulations.

    But maybe SEC regulations don’t matter anymore in this evolving “new normal”?

    Or, has the SEC just been bought off???

    • …or, perhaps you don’t know what you’re talking about & the tweets aren’t in violation of the SEC order.

    • Companies don’t run by board of directors permission … not on a day to day basis …

      • “Musk and federal regulators on Friday agreed to amend a settlement deal approved last October that required oversight of Musk’s social media use. The updated deal outlines a slew of topics Musk cannot tweet about until he obtains pre-approval from an ‘experienced securities lawyer.’
        “Among those topics: Any information about Tesla’s financial condition; potential or proposed mergers; production numbers or sales or delivery numbers; and new or proposed business lines. It also includes any “nonpublic legal or regulatory findings or decisions,” as well as any topic the company or its board ‘may request’ if they think pre-approval ‘would protect the interests’ of shareholders.”—April 27, 2019; source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/tech/elon-musk-sec-settlement/index.html

        In case you haven’t heard, Tesla is “not just any company.” LOL.

        • Gordon A. Dressler

          Your initial comment specified “review by Board of Directors”; the quote you provide specifies an “experienced securities lawyer”.

          Among other things, how do you know it hasn’t been reviewed by a lawyer, even though consideration of “moving to Texas to avoid inappropriate regulations” doesn’t appear on the proscribed list.

          Yea, I get you don’t like Musk, but at least get your facts straight.

          • I would add that the “inappropriate regulations” include the highest energy costs in the country, which CA politicians seem to want to make even worse. I wouldn’t think that “the straw that broke the camel’s back” is part of SEC regulations… Whether a move out of CA would really have a negative effect on Tesla stock is also very speculative…

          • Eric

            I’m with you on Tesla stock being “magic beans” – who the hell knows what market demand is for that stuff.

            However, even though Musk doesn’t appear to be all that motivated by his personal state & federal income tax bill, CA is HIGHLY dependent on huge state income tax payers like Musk (and other mega-millionaires & billionaires).

            If Musk moves (HQ relatively fast & easy; factory, not so much), not only are his hundred+ millions of personal CA income tax dollars walking out, but thousands of factory workers may also lose CA jobs (or pay CA income tax).

        • Were any of Elon Musk’s recent public tweets approved by the Tesla Board of Directors

          The updated deal outlines a slew of topics Musk cannot tweet about until he obtains pre-approval from an ‘experienced securities lawyer.’

          The second quote shows you were wrong in the first quote. At least admit your first mistake before moving forward to make others.

          • John Endicott and Eric Vieira,

            So much criticism, so little independent research on the subject.

            “The SEC said Musk sent the tweets without submitting them for review or getting company approval.” — source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/teslas-directors-seem-to-be-incapable-of-restraining-musk.html
            Yes, I do interpret “company” in this statement to mean the Tesla Board of Directors.

            “The SEC had argued that Musk was supposed to get approval from Tesla’s board before communicating potentially material information to investors, the agency has argued. The SEC claimed a February 19 tweet violated the agreement.” — source: https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/26/elon-musk-sec-agree-to-guidelines-on-twitter-use/

            On Friday, Tesla’s board of directors takes on the uncomfortable role of peacekeeper. Under a fraud settlement Musk signed with the SEC in September, Tesla’s board must now “oversee” Musk’s public communications, including his Twitter feed. Most of the details are left to the directors. There is no requirement that the company review all of Musk’s tweets. The company is, however, required to “preapprove” written communications from Musk that include “information material to Tesla or its shareholders.”” — source: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/twitter-restrictions-on-elon-musk-are-set-to-take-hold-but-is-tesla-willing-to-reel-him-in/
            Yes, I consider Twitter text to be “written communication”.

            The above three quotes from just the first six hits from the Web using the search term “Elon Musk Tweets must be approved by Board of Directors”.

            Finally, I never stated or implied that SEC-compliant approvals of Musk’s Tweets by the “Board of Directors” or “experienced securities lawyer” are exclusive of each other . . . but I will listen to arguments that this is now the case, if anyone can present such with credibility.

            And I do realize that it is more difficult to get a majority Board vote for approval for Tweeting out insider information compared to getting single securities lawyer’s approval for such. Why, using cell phones or the Internet, the Tesla Board vote might take as long as two hours.

          • Gordon, so much doubling down. Just admit you goofed. Is that really so hard for you to do?

            Yes, I do interpret “company” in this statement to mean the Tesla Board of Directors.

            You do know what Benny Hill says about what happens when you ass-u-me.


            “After weeks of negotiation, Musk and the Securities and Exchange Commission decided last Friday that Musk must have a company lawyer pre-approve tweets about Tesla’s financial health, sales, or delivery numbers — estimated or otherwise — as well as other specific subjects, according to a court filing. “

            The board isn’t reading/approving his tweets before they’re released, nor are they expect to. That’s the role the company lawyer is supposed to handle. In short the board isn’t required to directly review his tweets contrary to what you wrongly assumed. What the board may do is add to the topics they want the lawyer to pre-approve

            According to the filing, Musk now needs Tesla’s securities lawyer to pre-approve any public, written communication containing information about: …
            •any other topic that Tesla — or a majority of its independent members of the company’s board of directors — believe needs pre-approval

            Yes, I consider Twitter text to be “written communication”.

            No one is disputing that twitter is written communication, what they’re disputing is your wrong assumption that it’s the board of directors that is supposed to be do the approval. From the actual text of the settlement itself (included in the update at the end of the verge link)

            and obtain the pre-approval of an experienced securities lawyer employed by the Company (“Securities Counsel”) of any written communication that contains information regarding any of the following topics:

            Notice it does not say “the pre-approval of the board of directors”.

          • Is that the sound of crickets, Gordon? Not man enough to admit you were wrong? Why am I not surprised.

      • Thats not what he said. Musk has undertakings with the SEC about his company related Twitter pronouncements.

        • That’s exactly what he said and I quote “Were any of Elon Musk’s recent public tweets approved by the Tesla Board of Directors

  2. The Democrats are self destructing over this. It should be expected given that the persistence of lock downs seems more about politics than science. We can only hope that those on the left who still believe in science will notice that the same dynamics are at play with climate ‘science’.

    It’s both amusing and disturbing that the left uses projection to claim the administration is anti-science which is clearly a vain attempt to support the same argument regarding the climate science debate, which the political left is so wrong about, they can’t even bring themselves to admit that there’s a controversy.

    • Let’s recap the genius of those operating Alameda County:
      1. Oakland Raiders are now the Las Vegas Raiders … playing in a brand new, state of the art football stadium that is not located in a ghetto.
      2. The Oakland A’s are still playing baseball in an all-purpose toiletbowl of a 1960’s stadium in a ghetto with inadequate parking. The LAST stadium in all of MLB that doubles as a football field. Thank God for a fanless COVID baseball season.
      3. The ghost ship warehouse fire that incinerated 36 people was caused by Alameda County and city of Oakland politically-correct non-enforcement of building and Fire codes. Despite multiple interdictions by police, building officials, and fire officials … nothing was done to remedy the illegal construction and residency of the “artists” who lived there. Similarly, the FOB Asian building owners were off limits to all code enforcement officials … because … politically correct, selective, building code enforcement.
      4. Lock-down the TESLA facility which employs 10,000 people in the midst of a self-imposed economic depression.

      Yes. Incompetent idgiots are in charge of Alameda County. Thankfully, the TESLA facility is in Fremont … and doesn’t have a Marxist for mayor like the city of Oakland. There’s hope for Elon Musk.

        • Your inscrutable and vague response appears to suggest that FREEDOM is “dumb”? Seriously? You prefer the Fascist State? The Nanny State? to guide you and tell you how to live? I seriously hope you are not an American … living in America. Because you don’t seem to understand our foundational documents.

          Allowing workers back into the TESLA factory is not inherently “dumb”. About the only DUMB thing associated with this CHICOM-19 virus is the attendant hype and hysteria. The WHO lied repeatedly and was WRONG. The CDC lied repeatedly and was WRONG, and INCOMPETENT (wasting 1M test kits). The Governments of NY, PA, NJ, MI, CA all moved COVID-19 patients from hospitals into elder care facilities and promptly EXECUTED the residents. Our economy has been kneecapped and will take years to recover … only after going many more $ TRILLIONS in Debt.

          Hi! We’re from the Government, and we’re here to “help” you with our faulty “data” and junk “science”. Believe! We insist you “believe” in all we do … dumb ass sheep.

          Here’s ALL I needed from my government … there is a novel virus circulating in the world. China refused to contain it … so it is global. Be careful. Use precautions, esp. if you are elderly or diseased. Done. That’s it. That’s all I “needed” from my government. Why am I still alive, yet I’ve been to EVERY “essential” business there is over the last 8-weeks? Because I have taken PERSONAL precautions. Not hysteric … just sensible … precautions. Shutting down the entire economy has done nothing for me … except allow me to buy Stocks “on sale”.

  3. The lefties are giddy with authoritarian dictates. The steeple are wearing a mask to the point it is their badge of honor to wear a “designer” mask. What fools will do to fast forward their own elimination.

  4. You people are crazy if you think keeping people separated and safe is part of some leftest conspiracy. You want to wrap yourselves in the American flag and pretend that a quarantine is somehow an attack on personal freedom. What is it you don’t understand about keeping your distance from others and protecting yourself and those others against contracting a deadly virus? By your logic (and actions) I would not be surprised to see another, even larger spike in Covid-19 outbreaks, that will kill many more than the tens of thousands it has already accomplished in the US. Please stay out of Canada. We don’t need you bringing even more of the pandemic here.

    • pretend that a quarantine is somehow an attack on personal freedom.

      A quarantine is by definition an attack on personal freedom.

      • davidmhoffer May 10, 2020 at 11:11 am
        pretend that a quarantine is somehow an attack on personal freedom.

        A quarantine is by definition an attack on personal freedom.

        Besides that, a quarantine restricts the movement of sick people, not the healthy. What is being one is exactly as it’s been called, a lock down. House arrest also applies.

      • Chicago where I live was locked down March 17. The previous two nights nobody went out anyway, as the virus had, and has, everybody spooked. If people want to go back to work, shops and factories want to open, let them. The airlines are in awful trouble because people do not want to fly, but no one is stopping them.

    • What pandemic?

      Do you have evidence there was a pandemic, outside NY-NJ and Italian hospices?

          • niceguy
            May 10, 2020 at 1:38 pm

            So anything global is a pandemic, now?
            Yes, it was and is still a pandemic.

            And isolation or house arrests do not stop one, that is why all this was sold through “flattening the curve” on the “big wave” trick , which did not even happen.

            Technically and deviously as it was sold should be ended by now, in consideration of what was based on to start with.

            But you see, when it comes to the exchange of freedom for extra security, especially the fake one … as the saying goes “in for a penny in for a pound”,
            one which works in such happenings as ever escalating till resolved… where time the essence of the cost… too long too costly to all, in consideration of all aspects in consideration, including life.

            I guess, you know the whole world was and still is in isolation, lock down and house arrest…
            don’t you know yet??

            No territorial physical restriction to an epidemic disease, when happening,
            like in global, means pandemic…very much widely spread… beyond a specific community or specific population.
            The clearer for a pandemic rests with global, or world wide spread…
            Can’t be more clearer than that.


          • In a pandemic, you have tens of millions of dead. So far, world-wide, there have been 0.0% of people dead.

          • Indeed, dictionaries are. So let’s look to one, according to Merriam websters:

            pan·​dem·​ic | \ pan-ˈde-mik
            : occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population

            There is certainly no doubt that it’s occurred over a wide geographic area. The part that seems to be at issue is “exceptionally high proportion of the population”(notice the “and” in the definition, you need both portions to satisfy the dictionary definition).

            US population is 327 million case of COVID in the US currently are 1.3 million with 80k dead. So is 0.3% of the population (cases) and 0.0% (0.024% rounded) population really what you would consider “exceptionally high proportion of the population”? Seems to me, yarpos, by your own criteria (dictionary definition), this does not qualify as a pandemic.

      • WHO told us it was a pandemic.

        You remember, right before telling us they were going to have Lady Gaga on their show.

        Pandemic. Lady Gaga. Potato. Potato.

        Trust WHO. They know best.

        • Craig from Oz
          May 10, 2020 at 5:26 pm

          The point in all this affair is the very over hyped, overreaction due to the scare mongering panic fulled continuously by organizations like WHO and other special interests.

          In consideration of what happened, this considered either a pandemic or not, when clearly a pandemic,
          meant a catch 22, like being in between a hard place and a rock.

          Choosing the side of a pandemic, means that what happened was a stupid malevolent will forcing the illiterate, dummy and idiotic herd into a self destruction path.
          No pandemic means, a malevolent insane forcing it’s will in to an insane herd.

          WHO, which from the start of it shows clearly no will to actually properly deal with a very serious looking problem, had no interest to call this global infection a pandemic, as, in a pandemic the global imprisonment could not be justified, but then same, even worse if the infection global but not pandemic.

          These guys had already decided already, even to the script, which already many special players had and would follow globally… before ending up to call it for what it was and is.

          There is no ugly in being either illiterate, dummy or even an idiot.

          It is only matter of where one chooses to classify himself, in the consideration of a Pandemic regarding this actual happening.

          Sorry do not mean to be mean… but simply speaking my mind freely.

          Every thing points out clearly that it is a Pandemic, regardless of the way one picks at terminology… but hey free world free choice,
          oh wait… the world still free?!???

          (by the way, any body checking out how the doctors doing with suicide, I mean doctors kinda of loosing it and suddenly decide for the quick way out.
          The god complex is a very crashing thing at times)


        • WHO has the answers. Anything that goes against WHO is fake news by definition. Masks are useless, and probably actually harmful when used by everybody. Also, masks are essential and anyone who doesn’t have one shouldn’t be allowed to go outside.

    • What good is life if you can’t live? Facts are this virus may be with us for decades. There is no guarantee of a vaccine. After 35 years we still don’t have a vaccine for HIV. We don’t have a vaccine for MERS, Covid-2 (SARS), and many other viruses. We have a vaccine for the influenza virus, but it isn’t anywhere near 100% effective. I’m not interested in being locked up to extend the lives of the obese and smokers. They didn’t want to take care of themselves. How is that my problem? I’m healthy. I don’t mind taking risk in public. To each their own choice. You want to live your life in fear, go for it. I’m not.

      • “We have a vaccine for the influenza virus, but it isn’t anywhere near 100% effective”

        More like, 0% proven effectivity.

        • The Plague ended when it did for Plague Doctors’ Masks. COVID will ent when it does for ‘masks’. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. QED

          I have been vaccinated against Influenza strains annually and not gotten influenza symptoms.

        • niceguy, what you want to believe and what is true, once again are at polar opposites.

          Vaccines are very effective. Vaccines against flu are also very effective provided the doctors guess right as to which strains are going to be the big strains this year. There are hundreds of strains and they can’t put all of them in the flu vaccine each year.

          • Yet nobody has proposed evidence showing that these drugs are useful.

            You are a believer. I’m not.

          • MarkW writes:

            “Vaccines against flu are also very effective provided the doctors guess right…”

            Guess right…

            So, the extension of the logic is that if they guess wrong they are not worth the free lolly pop they give out with them?

            Personally I don’t get flu jabs. I am egg intolerant and have found from very annoying experience flu jabs make me ill within about 2 hours and keep me unable to work for the next 2 to 3 days. So faced with the absolute that I will get sick for what may be (if the doctors guess wrong) no benefit, vs the semi random chance that I MAY get sick I choose B.

            Yes, two years ago my dice roll failed and I was full fever, uncontrollable coughs and bedridden for several days, but that needs to be taken in context of the 9 other years since I stopped getting jabbed where I wasn’t struck down.

            Still, not all about me, so if you are not egg intolerant please make your own informed choices, however, Mark, if you are a supporter of flu jabs you may want to re-word your argument. I think I get what you mean, but it is not what you wrote.

          • Re: Craig from Oz

            I’ve never had a vaccination of any sort, and never take flue jabs.
            I get the flue maybe once every 3 years, or varying degrees. Most often a cough that lasts a couple days. Rarely I’m bed ridden. I think you’ll be pretty safe not getting annual flue shots.

            Maybe when I’m over 80 the story will be different, but right now, I don’t feel at any risk.

          • “Flue jabs”… “flue shots”… presumably administered by a chimney-sweep.

            Gotta love auto-correct, eh Greg.

          • So, the extension of the logic is that if they guess wrong they are not worth the free lolly pop they give out with them?

            Not necessarily, depends on how far off they are. For example this years (2019/2020) flu vaccine included protection for influenza B/Victoria V1A.1 subgroup but the strain that is actually in circulation is influenza B/Victoria V1A.3 subgroup. But that doesn’t mean this year’s vaccine is worthless; to the contrary, some data suggest that being vaccinated against one influenza B subgroup strain protects against other influenza B subgroup strains. “They are close enough so the vaccine offers some protection,” Lynnette Brammer, who leads the CDC’s domestic influenza surveillance team, told The Washington Post.

          • “Rarely I’m bed ridden.”

            If you weren’t bed-ridden, you didn’t have the flu. I had the flu once, 40 years ago. Never bothered with the flu jab, then or now. But that’s just my choice. If I was in a risk factor (old, infirm, nurses, prison wardens, etc) I probably would.

          • I get the flue maybe once every 3 years, or varying degrees. Most often a cough that lasts a couple days. Rarely I’m bed ridden.

            You sound like my sister, every little cough and “it’s the flu”. Just because you had “a cough that lasts a couple of days” does not mean you had the flu. More likely, in those instances, you had nothing more than a common cold. The actual flu is a lot worse than a mere “cough that lasts a couple of days”.

            Only about 3% to 11% of the US population gets the flu each year. and on average, adult only gets it twice in a decade. If you truly are getting it “once every 3 years” then you’re clearly more sickly than average, perhaps you’d do well to get the flu shot after all.

          • I would trust the CDC the same day I trust the guy in the Paris metro who says “the socialists disperse influenza and AIDS via aerosols in the metro”. Yes, that man exists. And yes, he used to spend a lot of time in the metro (mostly ligne 4 and RER B, I hear) – where he believed there was influenza and AIDS aerosols carrier.

        • Do you have a source for that claim as the seem to be swimmining upstream against the facts.

          Flu shots are not a gauranteed talisman against evil any more than car seat belts. But 0% is a nonsense claim, I would be interested if it backed up by anything more than feels.

          • It’s not. All anti-vaxxers like niceguy have to backup their nonsense is feels.

        • niceguy
          May 10, 2020 at 12:08 pm

          The thing with vaccines in principle is very very simple.
          Good well produced vaccine will be very beneficial and enough effective, in consideration of its administering, which very much tied to the principle;

          You get vaccinated for an infection and disease that your body does not know as it has no experience of it.

          A specific seasonal influenza vaccine, against a specific virus that your body does not know, or the chances of your body knowing it are very very low, it is a very good proposition, if you in the risk zone, like over 50 years old or under 10 years old, provided that it is a single vaccine and not a cocktail.

          For example, going from USA to Russia for a first time, and caring to have the best protection, for your self or your young children, getting vaccinated for a specific viral seasonal influenza which prevalent in Russia, consist with beneficial effectivity,
          especially if taken quite earlier than the start of the season.

          Same for some infectious disease in Africa, where a vaccine will give your body an extra boosted protection towards it, but it will not stop either the infection or the disease though, if you subjected to it.

          If you ever being told that a vaccine stops prevents an infection or a disease you have being lied…
          it simply effects the impact of the disease, by reducing the risk even as far as you some times not even aware, as no significant symptoms.


      • and smokers…

        French and Chinese studies are saying smokers are a lot less likely to catch it

        • That is very surprising. Early on, I believed that smoking among Chinese, especially men, was a major detriment to the severity of the disease in Wuhan. Turns out it may be the opposite.

          • Way back when I had to get respirator tested/fitted. The first step is a spirometry test to see if your lungs can handle breathing through a respirator. Six of us went together for the test, we all passed but guess who got the best results? If you guessed the only smoker in the group you’re right. According to the test giver, smoking “exercises” the lungs from deeply drawing in smoke so they actually have more lung capacity. Not in the medical field or smoker but I would assume this extra capacity helps smokers in some situations.

      • We have vaccines for the influenza viruses-note the plurals there. The problem with influenza, which will probably be true for SARS-CoV-2 as well, is that the bloody things mutate rapidly so that you need a new vaccine every season,

      • The obese and smokers are a small % of the affected, some studies are turning up that smokers are overall infected less than their population %. They do appear to be a bee in your bonnet rather than they major cause of lockdowns. Quite right though that the healthy self righteous should not be constrained.

      • And you wont mind me suing the sh*t out of you for being a carrier of a disease that threatens me because I have a damaged immune system after chemotherapy. Or MUCH more importantly than me the lives of hundreds of health care workers who eventually succumb from sheer virus overload despite being young and healthy and who you may need to treat you when it turns out that you are one of the younger and fitter people that get this disease badly. Sometimes even crazy Americans have to take one for the team for a little while so that we protect most of us from something that we still do not really know the extent of, because of lies and cover ups from the WHO.

        • Go ahead you’ll lose even on the flimsy preponderance of evidence standard for civil suits. You’d have to have some evidence that that it was him and of course all you have is a accusation.

        • Quilter -I don’t mean this to sound harsh but if you are high risk, quarantine yourself.

          No one else is responsible for your well being, exactly the same as any other flu / cold season.
          And can those whose treatment for THEIR health conditions has been suspended to keep you safe sue the sh*t out of you?
          Locking up 99% of the population who will either not get infected or suffer mild symptoms just does not make sense.

        • And you wont mind me suing the sh*t out of you for being a carrier of a disease that threatens me because I have a damaged immune system after chemotherapy

          Sue someone else because *you* can’t be bothered to take the initiative to quarantine yourself and instead expect everyone else to be forced into quarantined on your behalf? Go for the lawsuit. I hope he has access to good expensive lawyers so that when you lose the lawsuit you’ll be on the hook for a his large legal bills.

        • Quilter52,

          If you have a damaged immune system from chemotherapy or for any other reason, even the common cold can kill you. Flu deaths are also largely a function of comorbidities. Your law suit will fail.


          If you have such conditions, then it’s always been your own personal responsibility to keep safe fro infection, not mine, just as it’s the responsibility of health care workers to keep themselves safe. Just because the China virus is more contagious than others shouldn’t change this, nor should it be an excuse to destroy the economy to help the Democrats in November.

    • Explain how an order that people could not go to their own second home is not an attack on freedom? (Michigan) Or an order that marijuana shops could remain open but liquor stores must close? (Denver briefly) Closing fishing access? (Fisherman invented social distancing) An order that people could not travel more than 10 miles for recreation? (Colorado) The Wigan virus has an odometer?

    • Pearson:

      Please stay out of Canada.

      No worries, few American morons who threatened to leave actually DID (if only they’d go!):


      Immigration stats for the non-celebrity types:


      On the other hand, a lot of smart Canadians want to come here:


      I just hope those coming aren’t of your intellectual . . . well . . . “quotient.” Not that I think IQ really means anything in the end, I’m just trying to be bitingly satirical.

    • @Pearson james
      May 10, 2020 at 10:47 am

      You people are crazy if you think keeping people separated and safe is part of some leftest conspiracy.

      Crazy, perhaps, for thinking an orchestrated conspiracy is happening. But not crazy for thinking that keeping people separated is protecting them.

      QUESTIONS: What is safe about loosing one’s business that determines the well-being of the rest of one’s life? What is safe about forcing ALL people apart because of an ailment that is not life-threatening to MOST people? What is safe about presuming that all people are infected, rather than focusing on those people most at risk or who ARE symptomatically infected?

      You want to wrap yourselves in the American flag and pretend that a quarantine is somehow an attack on personal freedom.

      You want to wrap yourself in a cocoon and pretend that a quarantine applies to functional people as well as ailing people, while the lives of these functional people are destroyed in the name of good health.

      What is it you don’t understand about keeping your distance from others and protecting yourself and those others against contracting a deadly virus?

      What is it that you don’t understand about this virus NOT being deadly for most people and yet forcing everybody to act as if everybody is diseased, while their lives are being economically destroyed by a deadly plan of action?

      By your logic (and actions) I would not be surprised to see another, even larger spike in Covid-19 outbreaks, that will kill many more than the tens of thousands it has already accomplished in the US.

      By your logic (and actions), I would not be surprised to see a spike in everyday illnesses due to people having been unexposed to ordinary, everyday environmental agents for a while, as their unchallenged immune systems are now challenged once again, except, this time, en mass. And I would also not be surprised to see another spike in more people dying at home, because they were afraid to go to the hospital to seek care for non-COVID-19 ailments that they should have been seeing about, but were too scared to do so.

      Please stay out of Canada. We don’t need you bringing even more of the pandemic here.

      I’ve always wanted to visit Canada. I would not visit, if I were ailing.

      • Please stay out of Canada. We don’t need you bringing even more of the pandemic here.

        I’ve always wanted to visit Canada. I would not visit, if I were ailing.

        I’m from Canada and agree 100% with your response. Most Canadians seemed to have bought that we are all going to die. We have given up the majority of our freedoms due to fear.

        I would welcome you anytime to Canada!

      • Many people, especially on the left, are suckers for greater good arguments and don’t appreciate that this argument is used exclusively to support otherwise harmful agendas. It’s when this ‘greater good’ is dictated by subjective politics that things go bad because there’s always two sides, yet only one can really be for that greater good. In this case, the better greater good is to not allow circumventing freedom and destroying the economy to protect a small vulnerable population when their own personal responsibility can accomplish the same goal. Freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand and we must never allow either to be subjugated by government.

    • Is flu deadly? What do you do every winter to prevent grandma from dying? Mask 100% of the time? NO? You grandma killer.

    • “Please stay out of Canada.”

      Ah, you’re Canadian. That explains everything.

      “We don’t need you bringing even more of the pandemic here.”

      If Great Leader Justin Trudeau had closed the borders months ago when there were very few cases in Canada, that wouldn’t have been a problem. But, hey, that would be racist.

      • Phadrus
        Be careful what you wish for! You may get it. NZ has become too dependent on tourism.

    • Pearson James, as I understood the original logic of the Western nation wide “lock down” so far, the *medical* reasoning on this usually started with the assumption that this ‘souped up cold virus’, i.e., this CoVID 19 ‘coronavirus’, was likely to spread far too easily to really be *contained* anywhere, over the long run! Like it or not, this ‘containment is long run futile’ idea was a definite scientific implication, or at least it was a reasonable supposition, and this was almost regardless of whether one thought the death rate from exposure was likely to be quite a low risk, or quite a high death rate, that is, quite a high risk? I mean, not that there was ever any verifiable reason, or scientifically well founded reason, to think that the death rate for people under age 65 or so on this would ever be very high at all, so there was no good reason, with this particular virus, to think that working people couldn’t handle a small risk?

      If this much was scientifically reasonable (and still is, really), then what was the logic of ‘locking down’ in most of our Western country locations where this was done? I am sure I saw the reason given in more than one place (and you probably did too), that the actual benefit of locking down, wrecking many kinds of small business, sending people home from work, etc. was simply to make sure that *hospitalized* cases would not overwhelm the health care system. That is, we wanted to avoid a health care or ‘hospitals overflowing’ type of crisis! Given the obvious importance of this, and the possibility that a lock down might slow things down just enough to prevent it, I think it made some kind of sense for hot spots like major cities in New York and New Jersey to lock down for a while. At the same time, if there was any indication that any significant place here in Canada ever approached such a crisis, I am certainly not aware of that. Lock downs of the expressly work, business, and livelihood killing variety have been done here on the strength of simple *fear* that things *may* get out of hand, together with the idea (contradicting the ideas I mentioned previously) that we are preventing all kinds of deaths by way of the great and good lock downs.

      Some day, maybe the authorities here in Canada and other places may get their story straight as to why they did what they did (although I doubt it). Meanwhile, if there are lots of Americans managing to challenge the crazy and contradictory narratives of both the political elites and the supposedly scientific elites (the kind who contradict themselves), why then, as a Canadian myself, I think it just proves that Americans are often smarter.

    • You forget that people considered “essential” are not being quarantined. Government workers, grocery store personnel, police, fire, truckers, etc. are still working. If not having a strict quarantine is going to spike outbreaks, then it should already be happening among essential workers. They are not staying home but going to work and then returning to their families. If they can do this safely, why can’t others go back to work by using the same social distancing practices that essential workers use? Only leftists believe that government workers are superior, smarter, and safer than other workers. Aren’t government workers hired from the same pool of humanity that other workers are hired from? What makes them elite?

    • Pearson James, you don’t quarantine healthy people. You quarantine those who may be sick for an period of time to ensure they do not transmit any disease to others. Georgia is the US state leading the return to real life and it’s COVID numbers are going down. Since there is no vaccine available to the general public, hiding in your basement behind the furnace may keep you from getting sick for a little while but it is only postponing it, not preventing it. I, for one, do not intend to live my life like a cowardly libtard hiding from reality.

    • I’m 73 years old. I have underlying health problems. I know how to protect me from this virus. I don’t know how you should protect yourself from this virus. This is why we have a Bill of Rights for individuals and not for “social justice groups”.

  5. Tony Stark’s Elon Musk’s problem moving Tesla out of California is any other state dumb enough to give him a huge tax incentive deal is also locked down. I suspect the threat is just a ploy to add pressure on Alameda County.

    • Alan Watt

      “…is any other state dumb enough to give him a huge tax incentive …”

      I’d submit that other than IL, NY, CT and MA, there are few other states that have such onerous tax & regulatory regimes. Moving to any other states wouldn’t require much in the way of state tax abatements to equal the net “CA deal”.

      The obvious question is “is any other state dumb enough to tie itself up in high taxes & regulation, while failing to deliver quality public services?”. Unfortunately, the answer is yes (IL, NY, CT, MA), but Texas isn’t one of them.

    • Tesla’s Gigfactory here in Nevada is still operating, as is Panasonic’s huge battery plant nearby, and most other manufacturing operations.

    • The “Mission” of Musk’s green businesses is to farm for subsidies and incentives. No one should be surprised that after he milked CA dry, he will leave for greener pastures.

        • You’ll have to define what you each count as a subsidy.

          Here’s a couple of examples of government programs (which may or may not count as a subsidy in your book) that Tesla “milks”:

          – The ZEV credits. Tesla rakes in millions each year from the ZEV program.

          – The Tax rebate for purchasing electric cars. Telsa cars only recently stopped being eligible for this one, but for years it helped sell Tesla cars as it effectively lowers the price of the cars making them more competitive then they would be if sold at the full, unsubsidized price.

          • So, no, you can’t. BTW, every tax payer takes advantage of every deduction and tax credit that the government allows; it would be stupid not to. So I don’t see why anybody would single out Tesla and claim those credits are “subsidies”, unless you think all companies and tax payers receive subsidies. As far as the tax rebate for purchasers of EVs, that is hardly a subsidy for Tesla. And do you really think that people buying $100K sports cars really care about that credit or are particularly sensitive to price at that level? I don’t think you can show that Tesla products all went down in price after the credit eligibility ended.

            If you don’t like subsidies and tax credits, then your argument is with the government that put them into law, not the people taking advantage of them.

          • So, no, you can’t.

            Since neither you nor George defined what you mean by subsidy, nobody can in either direction (for or against). And as you still didn’t define it after being asked to, it’s you who can’t back up your position. I gave you some examples of what I’m guessing George would include under subsidies. It’s up to you to define what you mean by the term and explain why those “don’t count”. No one else is going to do your homework for you.

            BTW, every tax payer takes advantage of every deduction and tax credit that the government allows; it would be stupid not to.

            Indeed they should. That still doesn’t alter that fact that each of those credits are put in place for specific purposes. The purpose of the ZEV Credit (which is not a tax credit available to all tax payers, or indeed a tax credit at all, BTW, but is a regulatory credit for businesses – it’s more akin to a carbon trading scheme) is to assist a particular industry – “zero emission vehicles” (IE electric cars) over another (IE “fossil fuel” cars). Government assistance to a particular company or industry is the very definition of a subsidy and if you don’t think it is, then I again point you back to your lack of defining what you mean by the term.

  6. So, we are supposed to believe Eloon Gantry is suddenly an American and supports the US Constitution. Which of his “nationalities” will he decide to be tomorrow? This is no more real than Mikee Moore’s bullsh*t. Want to know more? Go check out his other appearances on Rogan’s podcast, he is somebody different every time.

    • He supports HIM not being prevented from doing business.

      Good enough for me. Selfish is OK.

    • 2hotel9

      So what?

      Exactly which precious SJW precept are you claiming has been violated?

      • So what? So everyone should stop believing everything that dribbles out of this grifter’s piehole.

        • Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. grifter or not, when he says something of merit, credit where it’s due. Giving credit for being on the right side of one issue does not in anyway require “believing everything that dribbles out of” his “piehole”. Many of the people here agreeing with him this one time on this one issue are not supporters of Musk in general (Hence the “I can’t believe I’m agreeing with” type comments, including in David’s byline).

          • Problem is I don’t believe him and I never will. Seen far too many instances of self serving a$$wipes to be sucked in by this one. He is simply saying what he thinks will be popular, and he will 180 when the next “popular” thing arrives. Hook people like this up to a generator housing and they would produce 10Kw continuously. Talk about perpetual motion, their spinning puts the planets to shame.

          • He’s been against the lockdowns from before they started (the panic was “dumb” according to him at the time). If he was going purely for popularity on this issue, he’s have been for them when they were starting because *that* was the popular position at the time, instead he’s actually be consistent on this from the beginning, no 180s to be seen. Dislike him all you want (I’m no fan of his, so most of the time I’m right with you re: him being an a$$wipe) , but give credit where it’s due.

          • No. I do not give “credit” to grifters, hucksters, liars no matter what they say to try and chameleon their way into stealing more of my money. That is the final measure, everything he does is aimed at stealing tax dollars. He took the position of supposedly being against lockdowns because lockdowns interrupted the flow of tax dollars going into his pocket. Lie once? Liar forever.

          • No. I do not give “credit”

            So you are a zealot that doesn’t care for the facts. Ok.

            As for me, who says it isn’t as import as what is said. Some one gets something right, regardless of who they are or why they said it, they get the credit for getting it right. Allowing that someone got something right this one time does not require you to like them or buy into everything else they’ve ever said. Only blinkered zealots see things so rigidly all or nothing/black and white. I’ll take Musk’s nakedly self-serving nature over that of a zealot any day of the week.

          • Even liars occasionally speak the truth. Only zealots see the world in black and white. I’ll listen to a liar over a zealot any day of the week because at least the liar can be reasoned with, zealots can’t as you so aptly demonstrate.

          • Enjoy Eloon, then, he is already stabbing the people who cheered his anti-lockdown “position” in the back. All those conversations he had with Bill Clinton were quite instructional, apparently.

    • Musk is out for Musk. Always has been always will be. This happens to be one of those occasions where Musk realizes that CA is antithetical to doing business. I’m just surprised it took him this long to realize that.

      • He wants to be loved, he wants legions singing his praises. When that chorus begins to dry up he acts a bit erratic. Instead of hitting the Old Grandad like Elmer Gantry he hits the ganja, mon.

  7. David,
    Hats off to you for your continued attempts to bring reason and facts to the children in the room! We adults, purveyors of science and logic, need to keep pushing back against the religious fanatics of the cult of Climatology! Hopefully this Dem-panic pandemic of the ChiCom-19 virus can be tied to GangGreen by their similarly flawed models and solutions. This unnecessary economic shutdown is just a taste of what the Green Raw Deal would do to world with countless deaths and devastation from energy poverty for all!
    Elon seems to have kept a bit too much of the conman in his bag of tricks; maybe the pot smoke makes self discernment more difficult. At least he sees the anti-business policies of Commifornia clearly enough!
    As an aside, I was wondering how you like your T. rex prepared? Smoked or pit roasted like a steer? Stay safe and sane.

  8. Yikes! Michael Moore and now Elon Musk?! The world truly is upside down if I agree with these jokers. Who’s next, Bill Maher? Oh, wait…

    • Bill Maher is mostly an idiot who relies on his audience of trained seals backing up every idiotic thing he says, but he does frequently support freedom of speech, so it’s not hard to find something he said that anyone who believes in the 1st amendment can agree with.

  9. “Of course, polls can’t tell us whether something is unconstitutional”

    What counts as constitutional depends on a poll of the happy few, so why not?

    • He’s managed it for 3 quarters in a row (a record for him). Question is, does he have enough accounting tricks left to make it 4?

      • SpaceX has a fundamentally different revenue model than Tesla. It relies on government contracts from uncle sugar.

        • The original question was about whether Elon Musk can make a profit. I took it literally to mean can he run a company profitably, and the answer is yes. SpaceX has many customers, and yes, like ALL launch providers, the government is a major one. SpaceX provides a service that the government needs, and at a lower cost than any other provider in class. There is nothing at all wrong or immoral about providing goods and services to the government. I work for a company that exclusively provides services to the government, like maintaining the air traffic control software for the FAA. This is critical work that has to be done to exacting standards. Frankly I could make more money elsewhere, but the work is challenging and meaningful so I stay where I am.

          • No one here is saying it is wrong or immoral, so please put that strawman to bed.

  10. Why are you in California in the first place? What kind of idiot would put a company in California? Hmm, where can I go where druggies and homeless are everywhere, water is a scarce resource even though there’s 1000 miles of coastline, sales, property, and income taxes are excessive, and illegals have a better chance of being released from jail than real citizens, and traffic is a serious problem?

    • I’m in California for the weather. At some point, I will be able to purchase weather cheaper elsewhere. That point is not too far away.

    • Jeremiah Puckett

      Well, I can think of at least 2 reasons (which may no longer be as attractive as they once were):

      o Availability of highly skilled tech workforce (Tesla self-driving system, et al)
      o Empty Fremont auto plant surrounded by unemployed auto workers

  11. 2 May 2020
    “Tesla applies for UK electricity provider licence
    The Californian carmaker has built up a significant battery business in recent years which it could deploy in the UK. Tesla has taken its first step to becoming an energy provider in the UK, a document reviewed by The Telegraph shows.
    In a move that analysts predict could shake up the country’s power landscape, the electric car company has applied to the UK’s energy regulator for a licence to generate electricity. The application does not make clear why Tesla has applied for the licence. The California-based company declined to comment.
    Having built a significant battery business in recent years, industry sources say that Tesla is now preparing to enter the British market with its technology.In Australia, the company designed the largest lithium-ion power storage facility in the world, which is capable of storing enough energy to power 30,000 homes. Experts predict that such large-scale batteries will be essential in the future to manage power demand, as fossil fuels are phased out.
    Another purpose for the licence may be to introduce the company’s “Autobidder” platform, according to a company source. Acting as a middleman, the platform aggregates renewable power generators and trades their energy. Tesla has also quietly partnered with supplier Octopus Energy to offer a tariff specifically designed for electric vehicle owners. “If you are a manufacturer of electric vehicles, you’d think they’d be very 
interested in offering an energy plan too,” said Martin Young, a power analyst at Investec.
    On Friday, Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla, wiped $14bn off the carmaker’s value through a series of controversial tweets. Still, Musk is in line for a bonus – tied to Tesla’s share price – worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    • such is the state of journalism, that statements like “In Australia, the company designed the largest lithium-ion power storage facility in the world, which is capable of storing enough energy to power 30,000 homes”

      This is a complete nonsense, yet gets repeated and never questioned or quantified. Apart from the core premise being nonsense its not what the battery was installed for. Its role is in grid stability to carry the system through transients induced by over dependence of wind in that State. When not busy they play arbitrage games with it charging at minimal cost and selling a % of capacity back in when prices get near the cieling of $14,000 per MWh. The tiny input from the battery consistently shows as effective zero in the scale of demand on the system management website


      select fuel mix and the select State SA (South Australia)

  12. Don’t know what sort of support during ‘pandemic’ is being given to Tesla workers. Both UK and Canada with very generous no-questions-asked payouts, a very large segment of the previously working population are resistant to going back to work. Here in Canada, its $2000/month, and my son and girlfriend who had to come home from work in Tasmania are apparently elegible on the basis that they filed tax returns last year. The only ones not elegible are those on welfare and/or disability at around 900-1500/month! Those who don’t want to go back to work are solid with those who are afraid they will get it if they go on their balconies. I cannot see how we will get out without just cutting the working population loose.

    • In the UK there is talk of cutting subsidy from 80% to 60% on 1st June, and then abolishing it altogether or progressively down for special cases if any are found.

    • We get out when we run out of money, to pay people not to work. Paying people not to work is analogous to burning a house to keep warm. That is not a solution. It is unsustainable and dangerous.

      What we are doing is turing our country, into Greece or Argentina. That road ends in tears.

      We need a solution to get out of isolation that reduces the death rate.

  13. Britain’s BORIS is self immolating. Parts of Australia and USA like NY Idem. These countries may never recover for a nothing burger cold flu virus when you look at the mortality incidence data. If you know anything about viruses and epideomology. Sweden is winning hands down. Willis was right STOP ALL LOCKDOWNS everywhere let old sick that are dying with horrible diseases die. Do not kill billions of young people and their future by depriving their lives. BTW I am 68 would willingly die with this virus which I know I probably have but dont have any symptoms like 99% of affected people. EVERYBODY will get this virus and it will only protect them against future flu’s thats why they occurr. the whole China origin thing is not relevant my 2 cents worth.

  14. David,

    I read through the Walter Olsen opinion piece on the link you provided.

    Mr Olsen gets a number of critical things glaringly wrong by (intentional?) omission, and ignores multiple 20th Century Supreme Court rulings on the 1st Amendment applicability to States and local government officials (that is, to ALL state governments and local government officials). Mr Olsen mostly focuses his rationalization on the 18th and 19th Centuries constitutional interpretations, a period when our US Constitution ALSO codified and legalized slavery.

    First of all, nowhere in that Olsen opinion piece does he even mention the First Amendment by name. So let’s review that most essential of enshrined liberties, guarantees that makes the US singularly distinctive from every other nation on this planet.

    On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of 13 states to ratify it. The Bill of Rights was ratified and went into effect on November 15, 1791. Bringing up anything before that ratification date as a rationalization is simply irrelevant in the US, but Mr Olsen did so.

    1st Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The National Archives gives us the plain language interpretation of this:
    The First Amendment provides several rights protections: to express ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion.

    Note that the right to assemble is not JUST to protest, but also for other reasons. It is not within the government’s authority to define a “protest.”

    Also note that the 1st Amendment is not just applicable to the Federal government, but to every level of government. Were this not the case, the states and local governments would be free to suppress religion, or to promote religion. Or to censor free speech or the press. We KNOW that is not the case, and that the 1st Amendment applies to the States and local governments since the Supreme Court outlawed school prayer nation-wide in public schools.

    In the 20th Century is where we find the Supreme Court embraces our Constitutional Rights in the Bill of Rights. The 20th Century Supreme Court found that these basic 1st Amendment rights are not just prohibitions against the Federal Government (Congress) but to the States and local governments as well.

    -Freedom of Speech (a prohibition of government to make any law forcing speech upon a person) applies to the States and local governments as well;

    “West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The Court’s 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed “beyond the reach of majorities and officials”.

    In that landmark ruling in 1943 (note, during the fervent patriotism of WW2), Justice Jackson wrote for the majority opinion the bedrock of what is the modern interpretation of the Bill of Rights and most especially the 1st Amendment rights:

    “Jackson wrote:
    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    The US public received further affirmation of the applicability of the 1st Amendment to state and local officials with the Supreme Court’s public school prayer ruling.

    “Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.”

    Engel v. Vitale (1962) made very clear the 1st Amendment applies all the way down to the lowest levels of government officials (local school administrators and principals).

    Make no mistake, Mr Olsen’s CATO opinion piece is woefully flawed and poorly considered. He relies on outdated (18th and 19th Century) 1st Amendment interpretations, of a period when slavery was also sanctioned by the Constitution, and fails to even consider the modern 20th Century Supreme Court rulings that place the 1st Amendment into the proper perspective to arrive at his conclusion that Governors and local officials (mayors, county judges etc) can impose lockdowns on free people, not other wise found to be contagious and a health threat.

    Mr Olsen couldn’t be more wrong about the modern interpretation of the freedom of assembly for any reason. It simply is beyond the reach of any US government official.

    • States have the power to impose quarantines, curfews, evacuations, etc. So I don’t think lockdowns are universally unconstitutional. I do think some of the lockdown orders will be found to be unconstitutional, because they did not minimize the intrusion on individual liberties. I also think that the First Amendment infringements are unconstitutional. Also, the arbitrary and capricious manner in which government officials decided who was allowed to work and who wasn’t, will result in any arrests or convictions being overturned.

      • The right to assemble peaceably cannot be infringed by any government order. Assembly is a 1st Amendment right. Every single one of these quarantine orders are unconstitutional. If a state governor can declare an emergency and then tell people to stay in their homes and only go out for essentials, then the 1st Amendment means nothing. If they get to define what a protest is and only allow narrow definitions of assembly, then the 1st Amendment means nothing.

        The Supreme Court majority ruling specifically insisted in its 1943 West Virginia State BoE v Barnette ruling that the 1st Amendment applies to government officials from federal, state to local levels. The 14th Amendment applies when a government wants to take freedoms from individuals, that is Due Process must be followed. The right to privacy is in the 14th Amendment and it is not the government’s business what I am doing if I am “assembling.”

        All those 100 200 year old quarantine cases the Cato Institute’s Mr Olsen cited were 18th-19th Century interpretations that have been superseded and changed by the 14th Amendment and 20th Century Supreme Court rulings. Mr Olsen arguing and cited rulings from 1783, or 1824, or even 1919 are irrelevant and moot since we have modern court rulings on the 1st Amendment rights and the 14th Amendment (that was used to affirm Roe v Wade btw) held to the People. Imagine how much civil rights were being trampled on in 1919 in the South. Or what the Constitution said about owning another person in 1824. And yet Mr Olsen used those periods as his “case” law justifications to cite powers to local officials… the guy can’t think critically.

        If Mr Walter Olsen represents the Best and Brightest that the Cato Institute has to offer, it is no wonder Conservatives a nd Libertarians are getting shellacked by the despots and socialists.

      • I will also add that imposing a quarantine order on someone found to be contagious for communicable diseases can be issued legal quarantine orders. Happens in modern TB cases. Completely legal. NO argument.
        But the General Orders from Governors or Mayors to quarantine in place to the general public without any medical evidence that specific individual addressed by the order/directives are contagious and thus a public health hazard, and then ordered not be able to earn a living at legal activities, that must not and cannot be constitutional.

        • Joel:

          But the General Orders from Governors or Mayors to quarantine in place to the general public without any medical evidence that specific individual addressed by the order/directives are contagious and thus a public health hazard . . .

          What do you do with this?


          • Think about the state of US Civil Right in 1902.
            – Jim Crow laws abounded across the South.
            – The civil rights movement wouldn’t start for 50 more years.
            – A bulwark of 77 years of dozens of Supreme Court Civil Rights rulings affirms the 1st and 14th Amendments. Rights to Peaceably assemble (civil rights protests against abusive Southern governors), right to free speech from government coercion (flag burning), right not be forced to pray a Christian prayer in an American public school, and so on and so.

            America and our civil rights of 2020 is NOT the America and civil rights of 1902.
            That is the poinbt that totally escapes people who try to invoke past civil rights era (where there were little) to todays. The Supreme Court has had a lot to say in the last 77 years. You can’t believe in Civil Rights of the last 77 years and also believe that a governor can issue a directive to with the force of law to order healthy people into house arrest.

            For anyone to suggest that because civil rights could be stomped on in 1902 by politicians or the 18th and 19th Centuries in the USA, periods when slavery was also embodied in the US Constitution and then Jim Crow laws were being applied by politicians in the name of “public good,” simply isn’t applying critical thinking on the subject.

          • Joel:

            “Think about the state of US Civil Right in 1902.
            – Jim Crow laws abounded across the South.
            – The civil rights movement wouldn’t start for 50 more years.”

            But race isn’t at issue in the case I gave you. Rather, the issue at hand is a state’s right to impose quarantine in any geographical area it controls in the face of presumed disease outbreak or whatever emergency it so declares, regardless of race, and regardless of whether anyone is infected or dangerous.

            In the case I gave you (which I presume you read), SCOTUS maintained the right of LA to impose a general quarantine over an expanded space of their geographical area of control regardless of the health status or race of any individual on board the Britannia. In fact, all of the passengers aboard the ship were certified disease free when the ship left France with American citizens on board.

            Basically, LA decided it wasn’t going allow the Britannia to dock, and thus issued a quarantine order AGAINST the healthy members of the ship, and this regardless of where the Britannia desired to dock anywhere within LA’s borders. If the ship decided to move to another area within LA’s geographical boundary, LA would then declare that area a quarantined area and prevent the ship from mooring.

            SCOTUS affirmed the right of LA to enforce their quarantine order, even against healthy individuals, thus affirming the right of a state to “quarantine in place . . . without any medical evidence [that] that specific individual [is] contagious and thus a public health hazard.”

            This decision by SCOTUS has never been overturned and according to the ABA has been used as recently as 2014 to enforce a state’s right to quarantine during the Ebola outbreak.


            I didn’t say it was moral, I just said it affirms the rights of states to take your civil liberties and toss them to the curb in the face of actual or perceived emergencies.

            I’ve learned after many years of arguing with my wife (D. Jur. University of Nebraska, 1982) that in law, there’s a difference between that which is moral and that which is legal. During pandemics and other emergencies, your civil rights under the US Constitution may be legally suspended for an indefinite period of time by the state in which you live, if that state so deems it necessary and so chooses. SCOTUS has so decreed.

            It’s actually a nice “feature” of Federalism, in so far as states still have certain rights they can assert.

            Don’t shoot the messenger, that’s just the way it is.

          • Clyde:

            I hear you. I’m not arguing the morality of the decision, but rather the legality of it. Joel has argued that LA doesn’t have the authority to do what they did even today. SCOTUS declared otherwise then, and this decision has never been overturned.

            Further, according to the ABA the same precedent has been used to address quarantines as recently as the 2014 Ebola scare.

            Sometimes there exists a great chasm betwixt that which the many would find immoral, and that which the state wishes to be legal. I don’t say I agree with all of that which is declared legal, rather only that where necessary, one should be aware of it.

          • Sycomputer,

            You mentioned Ebola and quarantines.
            Those were Completely legal because they identified individuals, not whole groups (populations), for quarantine. As individuals, each of us in the US must be afforded Due Process before our civil rights can be taken.
            General orders/directives to otherwise healthy individuals, unless documented contagious, are outside that authority and are infringements on civil rights.

          • You mentioned Ebola and quarantines.

            Right because that was the most recent example of where Compagnie Francaise &c. v. Board of Health was cited as case law to enforce quarantines related to Ebola. It could’ve been COVID.

            It doesn’t matter whether it’s an individual or a group. Had Ebola been as infectious as COVID then states may’ve done what they’re doing now and legal challenges would’ve been dismissed under the same case law.

            . . . each of us in the US must be afforded Due Process before our civil rights can be taken.

            Except in the case of widespread communicable disease, as I showed you with the Compagnie Francaise case.

          • sycomputing the Ebola example is an apples to oranges comparison. It involved a limited set of specifically named people for whom there was known contact risk. That’s a whole different kettle of fish compared to a general order quarantining the entire population most of whom have had no known contact risk.

            Had Ebola been as infectious as COVID then states may’ve done what they’re doing now

            It wasn’t and they didn’t. If wishes were fishes.

            and legal challenges would’ve been dismissed under the same case law.

            That remains to be seen since it didn’t actually happen then. In short it hasn’t been tested by the courts. We’ll have to wait and see how the court challenges go.

            Legally there’s a huge difference between individuals and groups. For example, the legal issue involving you tossing an individual out of your business (for example, some jerk behaving badly) is different than you tossing out an entire class of people from your business (for example, anyone of a particular skin color). Just because the one (individuals) may be legal doesn’t automatically make the other (groups) legal also.

          • John:

            sycomputing the Ebola example is an apples to oranges comparison.

            With regard to infectiousness, thankfully, you’re correct, it’s apples to oranges. With regard to disease, however, it’s apples to apples. That’s why your example is your own counterexample. The only difference in the two outbreaks is who had their civil rights stepped on by being quarantined, the one or the many. In the case of Ebola, it was the one, in the case of C-19, it was the many. The power of states to do either in the face of disease outbreaks is the same.

            . . . the legal issue involving you tossing an individual out of your business (for example, some jerk behaving badly) is different than you tossing out an entire class of people from your business (for example, anyone of a particular skin color)

            True, it is different. But you’re confusing the rights of private business to choose which customers they serve with the broad policing power granted to states by SCOTUS during communicable disease outbreaks.

            Now THAT’S apples to oranges. ;-p

            Take care buddy!

          • The only difference in the two outbreaks is who had their civil rights stepped on by being quarantined, the one or the many

            You clearly did not comprehend the previous post as you still fail to understand that what is applicable to the one is not necessarily applicable to the many.

            The power of states to do either in the face of disease outbreaks is the same.

            so you *assert*. Your saying it does not make it so. As pointed out what is true one the one end (individual) is not necessarily true for the other (large groups).

            True, it is different

            So you say, but clearly you didn’t comprehend that truth.

            Now THAT’S apples to oranges. ;-p

            No, it isn’t but do keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. What it is, is merely one example (of many) where the law is different depending on individual vs group.

            Quarantining the sick/exposed is not the same thing as quarantining the healthy/not-exposed. Quarantining specific individuals is not the same thing as quarantining entire populations. And rulings that apply to the one do not necessarily apply to the other no matter how much you might have deluded your self into believing it does.

            The courts will ultimately decide the issue when they get the inevitable lawsuits that challenge it. Until now, Quarantining whole healthy populations has *not* been challenged in court. As such, you may well be surprised with ruling that don’t match your assertions (though that’ll depend in large part on what judges get the cases)

          • Sycomputing,

            If you read through that https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33201.pdf linked pdf, you will find that nowhere in that review does States nor the Federal government have the authority to detain and quarantine healthy persons.

            Thgat link bolsters everything I have said. The General Lockdown orders of state governors and mayors is unprecedented and most certainly un-constitutional.

            Quarantine orders and detention requires either direct medical diagnosis or a reasonable suspicion that a person is contagious (fever, coughing, etc) with a pathogen before they can be detained or prevented from travel. It even mentions that some states like Louisiana requires Due Process of court order before the quarantine order can be issued/enforced.

          • The courts will ultimately decide the issue when they get the inevitable lawsuits that challenge it. Until now, Quarantining whole healthy populations has *not* been challenged in court. As such, you may well be surprised with ruling that don’t match your assertions (though that’ll depend in large part on what judges get the cases)

            Speaking of which, it’s already begun. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has struck down Gov. Tony Evers’ shut down order. So clearly, at least in Wisconsin, Governors do not have the unlimited power to quarantine entire healthy populations as they see fit, contrary to your beliefs.

          • Speaking of which, it’s already begun. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has struck down Gov. Tony Evers’ shut down order.

            Thanks for the update John. On the contrary, I think this case supports my position pretty well.

            See the following opinion issued by the Wisconsin supreme court here: https://tinyurl.com/y8q4v8jx

            What I’ve been saying to Joel all along is that during communicable disease outbreaks, states have rights granted to them by SCOTUS via the 10th amendment that pretty much make your 1st amendment rights poo. This case supports that position in so far as the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn’t rely on the US Constitution to strike down Andrea Palm’s illegal order, but rather relied on Wisconsin’s emergency rule procedures under Wis. Stat. § 227.24 (2017-18).

            The court relied on Wisconsin state law, not the US Constitution. In order for your argument to be supported, SCOTUS will have to take a similar case wherein the 1st amendment of the US Constitution is asserted to have been violated, and then strike down that state issued order.

          • That a court didn’t use one bit of law to strike something down and instead used another part of the law make it no less illegal and does not support the notion that the part they didn’t use was legal. They only need one ground to strike it down, they don’t have to use every grounds when so striking, courts tend to focus on the narrowest grounds in their decisions (why look at wider issues when a case can be decided on a specific technicality?). So, sorry, but it does *not* support your case, but keep imagining it does if it makes you feel better.

          • Hey there ya are John! I thought you’d gone and quit on me!

            That a court didn’t use one bit of law to strike something down and instead used another part of the law make it no less illegal . . .

            Indeed John, that’s so true, thank you for that. One might even say, “trivially true,” e.g., when we think about how self-evident deductions are logically cogitated.

            . . . and does not support the notion that the part they didn’t use was legal.

            Right, because SCOTUS has already decided the legality of that part.

            So, sorry, but it does *not* support your case, but keep imagining it does if it makes you feel better.

            Well let me say “thanks” for your concern John, but I’m feelin’ pretty good about my position. It’s always fun to hear from guys that are so passionate about their faith though, so keep it coming!

          • Hey there ya are John! I thought you’d gone and quit on me!

            Nope, just don’t always revisit the older articles as often the further in the past they get.

            Right, because SCOTUS has already decided the legality of that part.

            Except as already pointed out to you previously: SCOTUS did not. The current policy of quarantining entire healthy, uninfected populations has never been challenged in court before now. Not once, certainly not at the SCOTUS level. And the only ruling we have so far, at the state level, was a ruling that vacated the quarantining.

            You can’t apply a different ruling (quarantining specific individuals who had come in possible contact with a contagion) and claim that as the SCOTUS ruling on something that’s never been challenged before (quarantining entire healthy populations that have not come in possible contact with a contagion). At least you can’t in an intellectually honestly way. Clearly from the number of times you’ve claimed something that doesn’t support you position as being something that does (just in this thread alone), intellectually honest doesn’t appear to be your way of choice, just observing.

          • Well, attempted a reply now 10 hours or more ago, but so far, nothing here yet John! Maybe it was something I said.

          • Welp, I dunno John. I guess my (now 2) replies are “aetherized” forever. Too bad, I was really having fun.

            You’re a definite hoot. 🙂

            Is there a MOD to help?

        • Syscompute,
          simply put, lawyers must argue case law before Judges as it exists today. not 120 years ago if things have changed.

          Citing cases from 1902 or earlier when the foundational interpretations of the laws/constitution and Bill of Rights have changed in the eyes of the court are irrelevant.

          Louisiana also had Jim Crow Laws in 1902. They weren’t legally controversial then. But Do you think a modern court or Supreme Court would uphold those JC laws today?

          Of course not. Times have changed. 77 Years of cicil righys rulings have severely restricted abusive governors and mayors discretions to order people around in violation of the Constitution. and so has case law on Civil Rights for all Americans confronted with abusive Governors and Mayors.

          • Simply put yes, and thank you for that. I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

            Nevertheless, with all due respect, I think wrongly put.

            It doesn’t matter that civil rights law has changed in the face of previous racial bias. We’re not talking about race in this instance. We’re talking about disease. I would assume all or most of the passengers on board the Britannia were white, but their civil rights didn’t matter to the state of Louisiana in 1902, just like your civil rights aren’t necessarily going to matter to your state in 2020, assuming a disease outbreak.

            Whereas attitudes toward racial bias in society have changed, thus the change in civil rights law where Jim Crow was concerned, the nature of widespread communicable disease hasn’t changed. Thus neither have the broad police powers granted to the states by SCOTUS during disease outbreaks. It’s not a question of race, but rather a question of safety for the many.

            Plus, where in the world is the state going to get the money to keep the politicians in wine and cheese AFTER the lockdown if all the taxable individuals die DURING a disease outbreak??? Of course they’re going to keep us locked up! 😉

            Anyway, take a look at this document done during the Ebola scare of 2014:


            Again, I’m not arguing the moral case for lockdowns, I’m just trying to help you understand the case law with regard to them during disease outbreaks. Look, I could be wrong (but I’m not), what do I know? I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on WUWT.

            Take care!

          • sycomputing it doesn’t matter that race isn’t an issue in this, civil rights ruling are precedents on the courts interpretations of the rights of citizens. They are very much relevant on a case involving the infringement of rights of citizens. And any good lawyer would be quoting from them chapter and verse during any court case (as well as any other legal precedents they can bring to bear).

            You can link to all the documents you want, but as they’ve yet to be challenged in court, frankly they mean very little. There are lots of documents, laws, executive orders, etc that have failed when challenged in court and many of those were “on the books” for many years before being so challenged.

            If you want to link something relevant, than show us where a quarantine of large healthy/uninfected populations was challenged in court and survived the challenge. Just one such case would be a good place to start.

      • Elon could hire Neil Ferguson for advice, a talented epidemiologist currently out of work.

      • David
        Historically, quarantines have been used to isolate people known to be sick, on the basis that they were a threat to the welfare of others. Rights only extend as far as they infringe on the rights of others. This is an unprecedented situation where people are being quarantined when they are not known to be sick. Even worse, people who have recovered, and are not thought to be a threat, are also being quarantined. Our Declaration of Independence references unalienable rights, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These are all being denied in the name of safety.

        The US isn’t the only country starting to push back on lockdowns:

    • Texas and Florida put that adage to a lie. And it snow this weekend in Michigan and they have nut-case tyrant Governor.
      So at least until the Socialists can subvert the voting process in Texas and Florida to turn them Blue with the dead votes and illegal votes, they have both.

  15. Sadly most Americans don’t know much about, or just don’t care about the Constitution. If the federal government were to abide by what all the signers understood that it meant, only the enumerated powers would be permitted to the federal government. That is only about 1/3 of the recent federal budget. A stimulus package is not permitted.

    The Republicans are just as in favor of unconstitutional spending as the Democrats.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money” -Alexis De Tocqueville 1831

    • and Toyota went to Texas (Plano)!!! And gave Torrance Cal and Moonbeam Flush-it-Down Brown the big middle finger.

  16. From George Bush’s faceplant in his soup to Musk leaving; a story of the Fremont plant:

    Pres. Bush led a group of Auto Execs and union bosses to Japan to complain that that country was unfairly subsidizing their auto industry allowing them to under price US manufacturers. That accusation was denied by the Japanese government and by representative of Toyota who said it was simply that they could just make the cars less expensively; and were willing to prove it by setting up a joint venture plant with a US company willing to follow their model. (Travel time or the flu caused George an embarrassing incident at that dinner.)

    The union and GM execs thought they could “deep six” any Japanese trial by picking the Chevette plant in Fremont that previously had to be closed because of “unresolvable” union problems. It was reopened as NUMMI with many of the same employees, which then successfully and economically produced the Chevy Nova and the Toyota Corolla (the same car with different name plates). (When Shiego Shingo was once asked if he was sorry he gave the methodology to the American companies he said “No, TPS is like a suit of clothes, and Americans are too fat to wear them!)

    Many union rules had to be relaxed in order to implement the Toyota Production System (TPS). Seemingly proving Shiego-san correct the GM union crept back into the plant and eventually caused the closure as an auto plant.

    NUMMI however gave Toyota the confidence to open their own plant in Georgetown KY which is still highly productive.

    Musk bought the NUMMI plant and is now threatening to close it forever.

    As Paul Harvey would say, you now heard the story, but now read the REST of the story.
    I was fortunate to learn “Lean Manufacturing” from a man who was the first American senior executive hired by the Toyoda family in Toyota City HQ. John was instrumental in setting up NUMMI and was charged with the selection and training of American workers for the Georgetown plant. Part of the original agreement was that Toyota would set up a training center for any US company to learn the TPS. (Eventually the University of Kentucky absorbed that set of programs). John was my consultant when I successfully introduced “Lean” to my company.

    The surprise:
    As you might expect Toyota was planning to open a US plant well before George Bush arrived. In initial discussions John objected; the Japanese culture allowed for the basic tenets of TPS (e.g “work standardization”) but Americans would never be able to comply. The leader of the meeting was silent for a minute and then said “Wait here.”

    He came back with two volumes, the first a book entitled ,“The Ford Production System” – FPS. He said we call our system the Toyota Production System in honor of Henry Ford who laid out all of the basic principles.

    The next dump on the table was a huge US government styled volume entitled “Training Within Industry” (TWI). It was explained that this was the bible that the US used to standardized industrial operations in order to allow females to take over critical industrial jobs during WWII (Rosie the Riviter!) and was the reference Shiego Shingo and Tiaachi Ono used to perfect Toyota’s system. (John later called his consulting company TWS without explanation.)

    The lesson I absorbed is that American workers will adopt willingly any system that will make them the most productive (and thus earn them the most salary).

    • What I see is Kansas Maine Minnesota and Nebraska gaining herd immunity the fastest towards resolving this disaster.

      • sorry those charts cannot show you herd immunity.

        you need a lot more data to establish that fact

  17. never been a fan of this dodgy opportunist – for many reasons – but if he loses money during covid – too bad – he sure won’t be alone – but if Musk gets on board this mission into space he talks up – I just hope he has the guts to get on board and go with any uninformed guinea pigs

  18. Musk will move to Texas and think he is in heaven! Think of all that extra money you can keep in your pocket by moving to Texas, Elon!

    Elon may be using this Wuhan virus crisis to get richer, he’s just pretending to be outraged at the California health officials, giving him an excuse to move to a low-tax State. That’s my conspiracy theory. 🙂

    • Apparently he recently was talking with the Gov. of Texas. Would certainly be a smart move on Elon’s part if he were to flee Commiefornia.

  19. Wuhan virus? Surely you mean Ft Detrick virus? I leaked either during the August 2019 flood that destroyed the steam effluent processing system or after when they carried on regardless using an inferior chemical effluent processing.
    When this thing kills one in every sixteen people infected why are you bashing the ‘neo-sovereign-individual’ sociopathetic line?

Comments are closed.