State Lockdowns

[jumanji]

As for this not being social media, you are dead wrong. Message boards, as they are called here, are social media. Also, "Debate the Issues" is the proper place for discussion here.

That was my bad - I didn't notice the forum I was in until just now.

[Steve418]

From what I have heard, this is a blatant destruction and shredding of the constitution. Yeah, corona is serious. It's a dangerous disease, but it does not warrant suspending our constitutional rights. If that is not what's going on here, then correct me. If we still have the right to protest, exercise free speech, etc., then let me know about it. Because from what I'm hearing on the news, it looks like the constitution has been basically shredded and flushed down the toilet over this. Do I think this is serious and that people should stay home if they can? Absolutely. But I think that locking people up, throwing them in jail with rapists and murders for simply taking a walk or even going to a friend's house is justified? NO. Not in my opinion anyways. It's one thing for the government to advise people to avoid non-essential travel and social contact, but it's another to demand that people show them their papers of where they're going to prove to the cops that it's essential. Or to throw people in jail for simply taking a walk or seeing a friend or family member. It's shocking to me that anyone would disagree with that.

[cdwjava]

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.

The legal justification and authority to lockdown people in their homes is tenuous at best, and blatantly unlawful at worst. Fortunately, I am unlikely to be in a position of having to enforce any such order so I should not be faced with the possible repercussions of disobeying an order were I to be told to stop, detain, and/or arrest people gathering on their own property or out and about.

[Taxing Matters]

From what I have heard, this is a blatant destruction and shredding of the constitution. Yeah, corona is serious. It's a dangerous disease, but it does not warrant suspending our constitutional rights. If that is not what's going on here, then correct me.

Very generally, the Supreme Court has held that none of our Constitutional rights are absolute and that the government may impose reasonable restrictions on those rights so long as they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. Protecting the health and safety of citizens has long been recognized by the courts as a legitimate and compelling government interest. Quarantine laws and the like are nothing new; they've been around in some form for well over a century. What's different today is that we have had the luxury over the last 80+ years of enjoying relative peace and stability in this country. After World War II we have not been seriously threatened with war reaching our shores. We have not seen a serious pandemic disease situation for even longer than that. So most people living today cannot remember a time when the government has had to resort to these kinds of measures to ensure public safety.

But a century ago that would have been more common, at least a local level. Many more diseases existed then that we do not have to suffer today because of the invention of vaccines. Small pox, measles, polio, tuberculosis, etc, have largely vanished in this country. The 1918 flu was the last worldwide pandemic that rivaled the scale of this disease. When such diseases existed you would see quarantine and other controls used to contain the spread. We are indeed fortunate that those sorts of events are so rare in recent decades that few if anyone now remembers them. But throughout the history of humans disease has been a problem we have had to deal with, and it was just a matter of time before another serious one plagued us.

The measures put into place in my state certainly have the backing of existing law. I doubt very much that the Courts are going to say the government's actions were unconstitutional. However, as the laws were not designed expressly for this kind of event, what they can do is limited and the actions are thus a piecemeal approach of cobbling together authority from several different laws to be able to impose the restrictions that are in place. That is not to say that some states or localities might not exceed their authority in their zeal to contain the disease. That can be sorted out in the courts later and will help define how we are able to respond to such events in the future. But I reject the notion that the Constitution has been "shredded". If you look carefully at what most states have done they are relying on laws already in place to carry out their efforts, and that some of what they are doing have been recommendations rather than orders, and of course nothing prevents the government from making recommendations.

[cdwjava]

I can't speak to other states, but in CA the patchwork of authorities cited by local governments here have extremely tenuous legal backing to lockdown large swaths of the uninfected population and prevent them from engaging in activity that is not clearly putting anyone at risk. That is not to say such gatherings are wise, to be sure, just that the laws as they are crafted for certain limited restrictions are not sufficient to justify such wholesale lockdowns.

I can't speak to other states, but I have been reading quite a number of legal opinions that seem to take exception to those states where they are relying on these orders to justify lockdown. It will be interesting to see just how man lawsuits come from this and how many actually proceed (or, as is more likely, are settled quietly if allowed to proceed in the first place).

[llworking]

From what I have heard, this is a blatant destruction and shredding of the constitution. Yeah, corona is serious. It's a dangerous disease, but it does not warrant suspending our constitutional rights. If that is not what's going on here, then correct me. If we still have the right to protest, exercise free speech, etc., then let me know about it. Because from what I'm hearing on the news, it looks like the constitution has been basically shredded and flushed down the toilet over this. Do I think this is serious and that people should stay home if they can? Absolutely. But I think that locking people up, throwing them in jail with rapists and murders for simply taking a walk or even going to a friend's house is justified? NO. Not in my opinion anyways. It's one thing for the government to advise people to avoid non-essential travel and social contact, but it's another to demand that people show them their papers of where they're going to prove to the cops that it's essential. Or to throw people in jail for simply taking a walk or seeing a friend or family member. It's shocking to me that anyone would disagree with that.

If you were one of the vulnerable people, like me, who would have a high chance of dying if you got the disease, you would likely think differently about the issue.

[cdwjava]

If you were one of the vulnerable people, like me, who would have a high chance of dying if you got the disease, you would likely think differently about the issue.

I think the point is that all because there may be a need for such rules, the law does not necessarily support the extreme measures being taken by some jurisdictions. It may be the right thing to do to totally shut down movement, gatherings, socializing, etc., but the law does not necessarily support such actions. An act by the government does not become lawful simply because it is necessary.

[bcr229]

If you were one of the vulnerable people, like me, who would have a high chance of dying if you got the disease, you would likely think differently about the issue.

My job is considered essential so I'm still going into the office, but we've split into several shifts so about a dozen of us are in the building at any one time (max capacity 200) and people who are at high risk are teleworking. We don't have the bandwidth yet on the VPN for everyone to work from home.

Several of my neighbors are over 80 years old so I do their grocery shopping on my way home from work. If the store parking lot looks like Black Friday I just drive on by.

Cops here aren't pulling people over due to the travel restrictions but from my understanding if you get on their radar for some other reason then it can become an issue.

Also never thought I'd say this but I wish they'd step up traffic enforcement. The lighter traffic volume has brought out the crazies, and while I understand that everyone has put on a bit of speed it's the blowing stop signs/red lights that's quickly becoming a problem.

[budwad]

I think the point is that all because there may be a need for such rules, the law does not necessarily support the extreme measures being taken by some jurisdictions. It may be the right thing to do to totally shut down movement, gatherings, socializing, etc., but the law does not necessarily support such actions. An act by the government does not become lawful simply because it is necessary.

How about you show us the CA constitution and the emergency powers law given to the governor that supports your contention that the governor doesn't have the lawful right to make restrictions in an emergency and stop your bloviating.

[Taxing Matters]

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.