Twenty First amendment guarantees right to drink

No. Section 2 allows alcohol to be subject to commerce laws.

They’re not laws they’re orders, different stuff

Bars are still only open when they're allowed to be. This is basic stuff - you think you're the first to look for a loophole in keeping a bar open against government orders?

I honestly don’t care because I don’t drink, but a law is different from an order, and what is being done is unconstitutional.

Read my comment again until you get it. Or speak to a lawyer who will tell you the exact same thing I just said but will charge you for it.

No due process

The due process is "you're operating under a government license, and now there's a pandemic, so, you're now not operating under a government license."

Pandemic and state of emergency are two more subjects open for debate

Absolutely nothing got shut down during the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1969

Coronavirus has already killed more American lives than H3N2 did during the full two years of its outbreak.

The US population is 160% of what it was in 1969 (329 million v 202 million in 1969)
1957 Asian flu gave some people cross immunity. Still not the Spanish flu

So, again, in one-sixth the time frame of the 1969 pandemic, we're already at 130% the death toll. Don't tell me your math is that bad.

“...or use therein...”

So, if your use therein violates laws thereof, meaning if you drink it and you're not supposed to, it's still prohibited.

Article 1 of amendment 21 repealed the 18th amendment. Article 1 of the 18th amendment prohibited the sale

This is really not complicated at all. They repealed the federal prohibition, but they very much wanted to leave the door open for individual states and municipalities to be able to regulate the sale of alcohol. Mississippi remained a dry state until 1966, completely Constitutionally. Dry counties exist to this day, completely Constitutionally. And the government is absolutely allowed to close bars. Section 2 of the 21st Ammendment doesn't come up a lot, but it has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

18th amendment, article 2 allow states to legislate “...the sale...for beverage purposes” (verbiage from article 1) Amendment 21, article 1, repealed the ENTIRE authority of Amendment 18, including authority for states to legislate the sale of alcohol.

Article 2 of 21st amendment authorized legislation for interstate commerce. Article 2 of amendment 21 does not address sale for beverage purposes, as was specifically addressed in Amendment 18.

You are right that this is not that complicated.
CHEERS!

"Article 2 of amendment 21 does not address sale for beverage purposes"

See, that's EXACTLY what "or use therein" means.

For Christ's sakes, if you really think you're on to something, find a lawyer and waste their time. I promise you, though, the government absolutely allows itself to close down bars, and I really don't understand why that's hard to believe.

Just as closing churches and making us socially distance and denying large groups the right to assemble is a violation of the first amendment.

Just a reminder, during the 1969 Hong Kong flu pandemic the government shut down absolutely nothing

Good. So why did we this time?

Because this one's a lot worse.

Infection fatality rate is extremely low. When you back out to 50% of deaths caused by governor is sending infected people back to nursing homes instead of putting them in field hospitals, the infection fatality rate drops even more. This might be only a couple times worse than a normal flu but it’s certainly not the Spanish flu

And yet 130,000 Americans dead and climbing. H3N2 was only 100,000 Americans dead in the entire two years.

23 states closed down schools and colleges for at least part of that outbreak. 31 states grappled with elevated worker absenteeism. But more to the point, the peak infection of H3N2 lasted less than a month, with a second wave the next year where, unusually, most of the deaths occurred (normally most fatalities occur in the first wave) - highlighting the importance of avoiding complacency in pandemic response.

There were no government mandated school shut downs. School shut down for lack of teachers, i.e. they were sick. It all recent flu pandemics the highest percentage of deaths are elderly people with medical conditions. There is a lot higher percentage of elderly people this time around.

Isolate, quarantine and protect those most vulnerable to dying. There are epidemiologist who argue that social distancing is counterproductive.

No, you isolate and quarantine those most likely to be transmitting the disease. That is what quarantine has always meant - this little fiction you guys have going on where you quarantine people by guesswork only gets passed around because you've been lucky enough to live in a place where this hasn't happened in a really long time but it's not at all true.

The problem with all the social distancing, shutting everything down etc. is it it keeps things at square one where there are very few people who have had it and survived and developed immunity which slows the spread of it down. The minute you lift any of these sanctions on the populace, you get a spike in infections. The question is, how long thing can the economy survive? Many bars and restaurants will not survive. Associated businesses are being crippled.
Quarantining in the past meant isolating those with symptoms. That’s not what’s happening now – people with no one symptoms and no infection are being quarantined. That’s bass Ackwards.
The history of the Asian flu and the Hong Kong flu demonstrate that the people at risk of dying or elderly people, +65 years of age with medical conditions. Isolate and protect those people. Doing so is far less costly to the economy. And probably more effective

Yeah, we WANT to slow the spread of it down, so you don't get situations like Texas where the ICUs are all completely full. That's exactly the point here.

And if you treat people early with chloroquine and zinc they don’t end up in the ICU and 50% less die

Yeah, no, not according to multiple studies.

No, yeah, according to many doctors who used it and patients who survived with it.
2005 research shows chloroquine effectiveness against coronavirus, both in treatment and as prophylactic

Treat people early with chloroquine and zinc and they don’t end up in the ICU, and the fatality rate drops 50% also

Oooh, so confident you said it twice!

Sorry! For some reason I didn’t see it post

Right. Well, anyway, Texas is currently deciding which patients won't get respirators because they're aren't any. They're literally deciding who'll die.

But sorry your bar's still closed, that must really suck for you.

Bring on the chloroquine!

No, it sucks for the people I know in the bar industry.

This whole thing started because a church mission in Wuhan thought their work was more important than public health concerns.

Doubt it, but ok, blame the Christians. So you’re good with forfeiting the right to religion and assembly?

The right to assemble has always had provisions for public health. Always.

No, not always. But you didn’t answer my question.

Yes I did, genius.

No, you clearly didn’t. You stated an arguable fact.

Ok. Well, you know what you should do? Cry into a pillow until I change my answer.

Nah. If you’re not willing to admit tyranny in America that’s your problem, not mine. Maybe you should cry into a pillow. Good day to you.

Closing down a bar isn't tyranny. Bars get closed all the time for all manner of reasons and nobody cares.

Maybe not, but stopping citizens of first amendment rights certainly is, and that’s the question you dodged.