Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthArk370Z
It is not preventable on any realistic level. These "plagues" are going to crop up every now and then. Some people will always be overly optimistic and slow to respond (if they respond at all). Unfortunately, those people are often in charge of the response.
Fixed that for ya. 
I don't agree that it is necessarily better to try. People should have the right to do with themselves as they see fit. If Mother Nature thinks what they do is wrong, she will handle it.
Of course, when what they do harm to someone else, they should be stopped, but protecting them from themselves is ultimately counter-productive.
I'm not saying the US (and other countries) shouldn't be locked down for a while to limit damage - I think that would be a good idea. I was just pointing out that the US legal system does not allow that except in a declared national emergency. We have the emergency, just not the declaration.  |
Quick Constitutional law refresher:
We have a declared state of national emergency. But that doesn't allow for a federally-mandated 'lockdown.' The federal gov't has no police powers - the authority to regulate behavior and enforce order within a territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the inhabitants within. That authority is reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitutional right to travel freely is held under Article IV of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Both Shapiro v. Thompson and Saenz v. Roe have affirmed a Constitutional right to travel freely, and held that any government impingement on said right is subject to strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny requires that a law be struck down unless:
It is necessary to a "compelling state interest";
The law is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose;
That the law uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.
In the case of states closing borders to citizens of other states, while stopping the spread of this contagion is certainly a compelling state interest, such a blanket ban is neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means available to achieve this compelling interest.
Therefore, such bans or border closures are unconstitutional.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk