View Single Post
  #51  
Old 03-22-2020, 07:36 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I am saying that an equal policy choice, advocated by others not me, have been to let this play out as for the vast majority of people the symptoms are minor and they quickly recover, and the flip side is the complete destruction of our economy. Who makes that decision in a constitutional democracy?
"...to let this play out..." means the death of at least a couple million people (possibly more) in the next few weeks as hospitals are overwhelmed. The notion that this will not have a hugely detrimental effect on our economy, not to mention on the morale of the nation, is farcical.

"The complete destruction of our economy" is hyperbolic to the extreme. In fact, we are not losing any production capacity or immediate resources other than labor, and the only reason for an economic collapse would be a failure of the government and Federal Reserve to instill confidence in the financial system as being able to rebound from this. It is true that as a nation we are going to have to institute an unprecedented amount of debt forgiveness or delay and provide subsidy to people who are not getting a paycheck or thrown out of work, but then, we were inching our way toward that financial cliff already. There will likely be disruption in the global supply chain, but the United States is quite capable of meeting its essential needs (foodstuff, energy, essential dry goods and sundries) for an indefinite period. It also means we'll probably start having a big think about the security risk of offshoring the production of critical materials such as steel and aluminum, and nearly all textile goods, to countries halfway around the world even if it saves us a few pennies. That may actually bring back some of those jobs Trump campaigned on returning to the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
We don't look to constitutional constraints? We don't vote on it? We have one man making this massive policy choice all on his own, and again, in a way that has no parallel in history and no objective end to it? Can it go on for a year if it means that it saves only one single life? Can we vote on it then?
No, we don't vote on actions that fall within the purview of the Executive branch including actions within the declaration of an emergency under the National Emergency Act (50 USC Chapter 34--National Emergencies). Congress can, should it so elect, vote to terminate a declared state of emergency, or if you find actions under a state of emergency onerous or unjust, you can make a challenge in Federal court asserting your objection but you are going to have to convince the court that your complaint has a basis in law, and as stated previously, there is long-standing precedent that direct threats to public safety may justify restrictions on normally protected rights or freedoms provided the restrictions are limited in scope, applicable to the specific hazard, and not applied arbitrarily.

Stranger