Quote Quoting cdwjava
View Post
I completely agree. If safety and saving lives is how we justify trampling the Constitution, then think of all the safety we can have if we allow unfettered surveillance, ban alcohol and drugs, eliminate fatty foods, and a host of other things.
As you hopefully know, the domino effect argument is not a terribly good one. Assuming that just because you do one thing that X, Y, & Z will necessarily follow is not a logical assumption to make in most circumstances. Like it or not, public safety is a consideration when judging whether a particular act of the government violates the Constitution. As I pointed out earlier, quarantine laws are nothing new and have been used before to limit people to their homes or other places to prevent the spread of disease. We've just been fortunate that modern medicine has become so advanced that few Americans living today will ever have witnessed that occurring before now. It may well turn out that some of the actions the government has taken cross the line and are unconstitutional or lack a foundation in the state's law. That will be an issue for the courts to resolve later on. And from that we will find out what limits the government has in situations like this. But I have little doubt that a lot of it will end up being upheld. The courts are not going to be blind to the fact that in a serious crisis some extraordinary measures may be necessary to deal with it. The government cannot simply do anything it wants, but there is a lot that it can legally do to address this kind of threat.