Parker v. United States/transcript

Chief Justice Annabeth ChaseToday at 4:19 PM @Thomas Parker, J.D. may begin oral arguments (his arguments, anyways)

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:20 PM Thank you Chief Justice. In order so I don't take up an extraordinary amount of time I have prewritten my opening argument.

This act assumes that there is a legitimate power for the federal government to force its citizens to wear masks on the federal level, but there is no interpretation of the Constitution that lists an applicable power. Before I begin I want to clarify that this is not an argument that states do not have the power to mandate masks. This is not an argument that private businesses cannot mandate masks, or that Congress can’t make such a mandate on federal property. This applies solely to the federal government mandating masks everywhere because their power to interfere directly in the lives of citizens is severely limited, unlike state governments.

There is a significant amount of precedent that establishes the limits Congress has on imposing on its citizens. In perhaps the most applicable case, NFIB V Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government did not have the power to force its citizens to buy insurance to help promote national health care. Similarly, Congress does not have an enumerated power to force people to wear masks to improve the national health. Congress’ small, specialized power allows for spending on the general welfare, but not for a mandate on it. The well known and most common justification for a mask mandate is of course the interstate commerce clause, but even the broadest interpretation of that clause does not allow for an enforceable federal mask mandate. Wearing a mask is an issue of health, it has nothing to do with commerce or business. Yes, everyone wearing a mask may increase commerce, but congress cannot create commerce to regulate it (as was established when SCOTUS ruled on the individual mandate). If the interstate clause were expanded to mandate any consumer behavior that has any effect on the economy, everything would be on the table. Congress could mandate eating vitamins to improve health, mandate eight hours of sleep to recuperate health, and mandate cleanliness to protect other’s health. The interstate commerce clause was meant to regulate businesses across state lines, it never was intended to create change in the actions of private citizens “anywhere more than a kilometer from your place of residence”.

There is an additional argument to be made that the fines listed are in violation of the eighth amendment. The bill mandates masks anywhere more than a kilometer from “your place of residence”. This is completely arbitrary, as is the enforcement. To fine people for not wearing a mask while (to use an easy example) running in the forest by themselves is the definition of “unusual” punishment. Ms. Burkhart mentioned in her Amicus Curiae brief on this case that in US V Bajakjian the Court defined excessive fines as “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of a defendant’s offense”. But to the man in the forest, who has no risk by himself of spreading Corona, any fine would be grossly inappropriate. To argue, as Ms. Burkhart does, that any fine that potentially causes behavior that will save human life is not excessive means Congress will be able to fine anyone for any behavior that may cause a decrease in the health of others. Thus because of the extremely broad and far reaching nature of the punishments in this act it is in violation of the eighth amendment.

Chief Justice Annabeth ChaseToday at 4:25 PM "Mr. Parker, If I may."

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:25 PM Yes your honor?

Chief Justice Annabeth ChaseToday at 4:27 PM "Would you say that mask mandates, if properly recommended by the federal government should be enacted during a time of external crisis, say a global pandemic?"

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:30 PM I do not believe that the federal government has the authority on that matter. That said states do, and they have enacted mandates across almost every state. But even though Covid-19 was the third leading cause of death in 2020, it does not present an existential threat to the United States and so Congress cannot assume supra-Constitutional powers to deal with it. Does that answer the question?

Chief Justice Annabeth ChaseToday at 4:32 PM nods "It does." ( @Associate Justice you may begin your questions in any order - I'm not imposing seniority

The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:32 PM Mr. Parker, do you have anything further to your opening statement?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:33 PM That was essentially the end of my argument. A majority of the fifty states already have mask mandates, just as the founding fathers would have wished. This federal mask mandate opens an unnecessary can of worms that will remove every check on the power of the federal government if it is not struck down. There's the ending.

Justice Edmund MuskieToday at 4:33 PM Mr. Parker if the government can enforce a smoking ban in the name of public health how is a mask mandate any different?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:36 PM Your honor, federal smoking bans are generally on federal property, which I full recognize the federal government has a right to enforce. However, I disagree that banning smoking is the same as mandating that every man, woman, and child regardless of location and context wear a piece of cloth over their face without exception.

Justice Edmund MuskieToday at 4:36 PM Wouldn't you say second hand smoke that can harm others around a smoker would be similar to enforcing masks which help prevent the spread of covid to others?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:39 PM First, I do not believe that a federal ban on public smoking would be constitutional. States are a different issue, as with masking.

Second, the arguments are not comparable if, like the vast majority of the people wearing masks, they do not have Coronavirus and are not spreading it. With smoking it is a fact, with a mask mandate it is merely a possibility. I would add that even if the mask mandate would significantly improve health it doesn't negate the constitutionality issues.

Justice Edmund MuskieToday at 4:41 PM Finally Mr. Parker as a point of clarification is there anywhere within the constitution that says the government cannot enforce a mask mandate or something along those lines?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:42 PM The 10th amendment enshrines the principle of federalism. As this is clearly not justifiable in Congress' listed powers, it is a states issue.

Justice Edmund MuskieToday at 4:43 PM Thank you for your time

The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:43 PM Hello Mr. Vice President, how are you doing today?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:44 PM That depends a lot on how this goes your honor :sweat_smile:

The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:44 PM Understandable, well I appreciate your dedication to the cause. Let's get right to it then, Mr. Parker, would you agree with the studies found that the rates of symptomatic, and asymptomatic,-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection rates among the public is approximately 36% within close quarters?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:45 PM I don't know enough about this specific study but I am aware that infection rates inside are high.

The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:46 PM Would you also agree that the COVID-19 virus has a mortality rate of around 1%, possibly more.

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:48 PM I have seen CDC stats that point to around 0.3%, but your honor may have more updated info.

The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:48 PM Yeah In America I believe it's much lower, considering our solid healthcare system. So that number is likely much more accurate to our nation, So would you say, that at least for some portion of society, COVID-19 is an existential threat to the way they live their life?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:50 PM For certain communities this may be true your honor. But the Constitution exists for a reason and it should not be thrown out unless the entire nation will collapse otherwise, as the founders intended. Even in war time we do our best to stay true to it.

The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:50 PM Would you also agree that, on occasion, the constitution is bent in the interest of national security? Examples like restricting certain software for government workers, to prevent data leaks

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:50 PM It is of my belief that the Supreme Court exists to correct such bents. The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 4:51 PM It is a simple yes or no question, Mr. Parker No further questions at this time

Justice John LynnToday at 4:51 PM Mr. Parker, it appears as if we have been slightly deceived regarding the central argument of your petition. I was under the impression that we were to rule on the constitutionality of a mandate without a specified time requirement, however it appears that we are answering the question of the constitutionality of a mask mandate. For clarification’s sake, which are we assembled here to rule on?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:53 PM Your honor, I outlined my concerns about the tenth and eighth amendment violations in my petition. I ended my petition with a one sentence point that the restrictions apply infinitely, but I thought better to highlight the Constitutional violations as the infinite lifespan is the job of the legislative branch to fix.

Justice John LynnToday at 4:55 PM Alright. Understanding that we are actually here to rule on the constitutionality of a mask mandate, Mr. Parker I am aware that you have cited the 8th in your petition. Notwithstanding that this case regards a mandate that is clearly unfunded, regarding a states’ 10th Amendment rights does a mask mandate instituted by the federal government usurp a states' reserved powers?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 4:58 PM Yes, given that there is no justification for a federal mandate, it is the states job to handle some of the health and safety concerns that have been highlighted here, and the federal government has no power to compel such action without (as you said) in a voluntary way from states through funding.

Justice John LynnToday at 4:59 PM Alright one last question councilor, understanding the preamble to the United States Constitution specifically outlines the duties of our constitutional republic, and includes the task to "promote the General welfare", where do we draw the line between the protection of the First Amendment, and promotion of the General welfare, which some may say includes the mandating of masks to protect from a COVID-19?

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 5:03 PM Your honor, it is of my opinion that the intent of the founding fathers in devolving this power to the states was to ensure the most personalized possible "promotion" of general welfare possible. This bill is overly broad and is certainly not promoting such welfare by applying mask mandates in inappropriate situations and places. Even if one were to allow the government to create a mandate simply through the preamble, it would fail to live up to that standard.

Justice John LynnToday at 5:03 PM Thank you Mr. Parker

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 5:04 PM I cede my time unless there are anymore questions. Justice Joseph JenningsToday at 5:06 PM I have no questions. I have heard what I needed. Justice John StrangeloveToday at 5:06 PM I have no questions

Chief Justice Annabeth ChaseToday at 5:06 PM The United States Respondent may make their opening argument. @Solicitor General

Noah King (L)Today at 5:06 PM I am present. Your honor, after speaking with the President, the United States acknowledges no contest. We believe Mr. Parkers argument is sufficient. The Honourable Elizabeth McCordToday at 5:08 PM

Thomas Parker, J.D.Today at 5:08 PM (Would like to clarify that I did not know that would happen and did not negotiate with him or the President on this issue)

Noah King (L)Today at 5:09 PM Mr. Parker is correct.

Justice Edmund MuskieToday at 5:09 PM lmao

Chief Justice Annabeth ChaseToday at 5:21 PM bangs gavel "We are adjourned for deliberations" exits

Justice John LynnToday at 5:22 PM exits