Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-22-2020, 07:36 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
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
  #52  
Old 03-22-2020, 07:39 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
You know, using the comparison to auto accidents is really showing an extreme level of ignorance of what is at stake.

Starting thinking Civil War, WW2, nuclear war level of deaths.
  #53  
Old 03-22-2020, 07:53 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You know, using the comparison to auto accidents is really showing an extreme level of ignorance of what is at stake.

Starting thinking Civil War, WW2, nuclear war level of deaths.
Not quite as extreme as a nuclear exchange, and not the infrastructure destruction of war, but getting arndou to that order of magnitude of deaths, at least. And this is going to cause a lot of changes in both the global economy and international relations, because this is not the last pandemic we are going to face; as we see more waves of migration and food insecurity resulting from climate change and political unrest, the potential for local epidemics to become major pandemics rises. We're going to be experiencing major changes regardless of whether we sit on our hands or take action, and at least taking an active role now will give us feedback on what works and what doesn't in future outbreaks.

Stranger
  #54  
Old 03-22-2020, 08:22 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
I meant to say nuclear bomb - not a full exchange.
  #55  
Old 03-22-2020, 08:46 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
If enough members of Congress (both houses) die, can the survivors vote a POTUS dictatorial powers "to deal with the crisis", essentially suspending the Constitution? Especially if a few of SCOTUS croak too. Are we Dopers short-sighted to only consider governors' decrees?
  #56  
Old 03-22-2020, 08:59 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
If enough members of Congress (both houses) die, can the survivors vote a POTUS dictatorial powers "to deal with the crisis", essentially suspending the Constitution? Especially if a few of SCOTUS croak too. Are we Dopers short-sighted to only consider governors' decrees?
If members of Congress die, there will be special elections (for the Reps and some Senate seats) or appointments (for other Senate seats). The state governors have the power to keep Congress well-stocked.
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #57  
Old 03-22-2020, 10:46 PM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 30,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I didn't say offices don't have to close , I said businesses don't have to close.
<snip>
there's a reason I said "The police will not arrest me "rather than "The police will not arrest someone" or "will not arrest you".
I don't have the ability to debate with that level of nitpicking, so, you win.
  #58  
Old 03-22-2020, 11:57 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Not quite as extreme as a nuclear exchange, and not the infrastructure destruction of war, but getting arndou to that order of magnitude of deaths, at least. And this is going to cause a lot of changes in both the global economy and international relations, because this is not the last pandemic we are going to face; as we see more waves of migration and food insecurity resulting from climate change and political unrest, the potential for local epidemics to become major pandemics rises. We're going to be experiencing major changes regardless of whether we sit on our hands or take action, and at least taking an active role now will give us feedback on what works and what doesn't in future outbreaks.

Stranger
I know where you're going with this but I really think we should leave nuking the refugee camps and countries with food shortages as a last resort.
  #59  
Old 03-24-2020, 11:00 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Who makes that decision in a constitutional democracy?
The same people/groups/institutions that have made these kinds of decisions since the founding. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
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?
How about you take a shot at answering those questions? Do you have an actual position to defend or is this just another of your "just asking questions" waste of time?
  #60  
Old 03-24-2020, 12:53 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 5,077
NM
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"

Last edited by pool; 03-24-2020 at 12:56 PM.
  #61  
Old 03-24-2020, 01:09 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
The same people/groups/institutions that have made these kinds of decisions since the founding. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

How about you take a shot at answering those questions? Do you have an actual position to defend or is this just another of your "just asking questions" waste of time?
I did answer those questions. I'm a bit tired of expressing an opinion which answers your questions in the opinion itself and having you complain that I didn't answer your question, then answer it again to have you complain that I never answer questions.

But, I'll give it a shot.

1) Since the founding, nobody has instituted a population-wide lockdown of healthy people because of the spread of a disease. Not for smallpox, measles, typhoid, for anything. So, no, these decisions were not made by any people/groups/institutions since the founding and I have said so at least two times in this thread. Is that difficult for you to read?

2) I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not. I don't believe that should even be up for a vote. Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no. Does that answer suffice for you or should I repeat it?
  #62  
Old 03-24-2020, 01:22 PM
garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 11,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...

2) I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not. I don't believe that should even be up for a vote. Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no. Does that answer suffice for you or should I repeat it?
"Healthy people" are spreading the disease. Asymptomatic transmission is unprecedented and is the reason this is all happening.
__________________
°o°
  #63  
Old 03-24-2020, 01:35 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not. I don't believe that should even be up for a vote.
You need to make up your mind on whether we should vote or shouldn’t vote instead of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no. Does that answer suffice for you or should I repeat it?
By definition, quarantine includes all people who have been exposed and may carry contagion. It is clear that the majority of people who are infected are asymptomatic or have minimal symptoms and present no visible signs. At this point, we can’t assume that anybody is “healthy”, i.e. uninfected.

Stranger
  #64  
Old 03-24-2020, 02:45 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
2) I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not. I don't believe that should even be up for a vote. Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no. Does that answer suffice for you or should I repeat it?
Have you seen the projections that 50-75% of Americans will get the disease in an uncontrolled scenario?

I'm curious as to whether you don't believe that, or if you think that once a substantial majority of Americans already have it, then the government can take action.
  #65  
Old 03-24-2020, 03:18 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
UltraVires, try telling a judge you're immune and can disregard emergency orders. Please report back.
  #66  
Old 03-24-2020, 03:27 PM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Have you seen the projections that 50-75% of Americans will get the disease in an uncontrolled scenario?

I'm curious as to whether you don't believe that, or if you think that once a substantial majority of Americans already have it, then the government can take action.
I'm betting he'll say that most of those people will have mild cases or no symptoms. But "mild" here can and often does mean plenty of missed work. I only know one person with COVID-19: a healthy, fit 28-year-old who very rarely takes a sick day. He's been sick for over a week. Still, he'll say that's no worse than a bad flu season.

The economics he's not considering are:

•The "only" 20% of Americans who will get severe cases amounts to over 60,000,000 people.

• Some will be children because some kids have asthma (8%) or other risk factors, but they won't have as big an impact, though parents will have to take time off. And some are the elderly who aren't working.

• But 6,600,000 people over age 65 are in the workforce. They'll be absent. And they won't be buying much.

• Business owners over 65 will die, and many of their businesses will close.

• Diabetes, high BP, asthma, cancer, lupus, COPD--there are a host of conditions that make people of any age more likely to get a severe (or fatal) case of COVID-19, and one-third of Americans have them.

Health insurance rates will skyrocket for everyone. Medicare and Medicaid will blow well past their budgets.

I'd LOVE the restrictions to be lifted, but I wouldn't love losing people dear to me. Maybe Ultravires doesn't have anyone dear to him who's older or who has an underlying health condition. Or maybe it's just easier for some people to shrug off consequences when it's in the abstract.
  #67  
Old 03-25-2020, 08:01 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) Since the founding, nobody has instituted a population-wide lockdown of healthy people because of the spread of a disease.
A "population wide lockdown"? Do you mean like what cities/counties/states have done (quarantining people), but for the entire nation? Something like this?

Or do you mean the CDC and the federal government simply recommending social distancing, without any real civil or criminal penalties? I mean, I think you're right that we've never had a "population wide lockdown" in the US, but I also don't think we're going to see one now unless things go really south. What is much more likely, and is in fact occurring, is that cities and counties institute quarantines for local populations. And that' something that has definitely occurred in the US before. From the CDC: "Large-scale isolation and quarantine was last enforced during the influenza (“Spanish Flu”) pandemic in 1918–1919." Cite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
So, no, these decisions were not made by any people/groups/institutions since the founding and I have said so at least two times in this thread.
It would be easier for me to understand what you're asserting if you actually cited to something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
2) I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not.
By government, do you mean the only the feds or local governments too? Do you doubt the legality of, let's pick an example at random, a state law requiring people (even not sick people) to get vaccinated for smallpox with a potential fine for violation? Do you doubt the legality of a mandatory quarantine for 14 days for all people, not just ones who are clearly infected, but anyone who travelled from a potential hotspot?

Do you doubt the legality of a city to quarantine a person who came into contact with someone with a disease, but claimed to not be sick? Do you think a court would rule that: "It is not necessary that one be actually sick, as that term is usually applied, in order that the health authorities have the right to restrain his liberties by quarantine regulations. Quarantine is not a cure — it is a preventive." Did your "research" find any of those?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
I don't believe that should even be up for a vote. Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no.
If only it were that easy, we might agree.
  #68  
Old 03-25-2020, 08:48 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I'm betting he'll say that most of those people will have mild cases or no symptoms. But "mild" here can and often does mean plenty of missed work. I only know one person with COVID-19: a healthy, fit 28-year-old who very rarely takes a sick day. He's been sick for over a week. Still, he'll say that's no worse than a bad flu season.

The economics he's not considering are:

•The "only" 20% of Americans who will get severe cases amounts to over 60,000,000 people.

If 70% of the population of 330M gets covid-19 and 20% require hospitalization that would be (330M×.7×.2) 46M people.
  #69  
Old 03-26-2020, 05:11 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,817
The written order from the ruling I mentioned earlier. Although the opinion deals with 50 or more gathering rather than 10, it still has a fair amount of insight into the issues.
  #70  
Old 03-26-2020, 08:25 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
2) I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not. I don't believe that should even be up for a vote. Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no.
[Emphasis mine]

How do you know who is healthy and who is sick?
  #71  
Old 03-26-2020, 09:32 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
How do you know who is healthy and who is sick?
”We shall use my largest scales.”

Stranger
  #72  
Old 03-26-2020, 10:34 PM
Francis Vaughan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Here we go again. We cannot question anything because if we do it means that we want people to die so we can go drink at the bar. That's not what I am saying.

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?
The idea that letting it play out would save the economy is not well supported. All ideas don't get equal say. They get moderated on their chance of actually being true.

The likely answer is the letting it play out may do more economic damage, not less. I think it is reasonable that a big part of what drives the current decisions is actually protecting the individual countries and their economies.

The economy of anywhere is built on trust. If people are dying by the hundreds of thousands, and there is no apparent government action that is doing any good, the economy is going to be in far worse shape than now. Right now we restrict by common assent. The alternative is a society riven by blind fear and restricting itself out of that. One is controlled, that other, who knows how it plays out?

Last edited by Francis Vaughan; 03-26-2020 at 10:34 PM.
  #73  
Old 03-28-2020, 02:48 PM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,068
Apparently the president thinks he has the authority to quarantine, as he says he's considering quarantining hot spots in New York "probably New Jersey" and "certain parts of Connecticut." He says he'll decide sometime today.

Quote:
"I don't even know what that means. I don't know how that could be legally enforceable," the Democratic governor said during in a news conference in Albany. "And from a medical point view, I don't know what you would be accomplishing."

"But I can tell you, I don't even like the sound of it," he added.

Trump, however, said that possible quarantine would be "enforceable" and "restrict travel" from those parts of the tri-state area. He also said any quarantine wouldn't affect truckers from outside the New York area.

"Restrict travel, because they're having problems down in Florida, a lot of New Yorkers going down. We don't want that," he said.
Trump says such a quarantine would only be for two weeks or so.

I'm unclear as to what this would entail and how it would be enforced. I'm assuming roads to and from these areas would be blocked, but by whom? The military? Would the Coast Guard stop water craft? Would the FFA shut down airports?

It doesn't seem likely the federal government has the constitutional authority to do this, but if Trump does it anyway, would states likely take this to the Supreme Court?
  #74  
Old 03-28-2020, 03:08 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Apparently the president thinks he has the authority to quarantine, as he says he's considering quarantining hot spots in New York "probably New Jersey" and "certain parts of Connecticut." He says he'll decide sometime today.
...I'm unclear as to what this would entail and how it would be enforced. I'm assuming roads to and from these areas would be blocked, but by whom? The military? Would the Coast Guard stop water craft? Would the FFA shut down airports?
The Commerce Clause (US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) gives the Congress the power to regulate ‘trade’ between the states; this has been broadly interpreted to include the illegal drug trade under the premise that even if the drug transactions themselves don’t cross state lines the money involved will. Such a premise could, I suppose, be applied to individuals taking their ‘trade’ from one state to another but that would be an enormous reach that I don’t think federal courts would uphold long before it gets to the SCOTUS level.

Trump, of course, has no power to prevent anyone from crossing state lines, and how he would instruct the Justice and Commerce Departments to enforce any attempt at an executive order is...well, unclear at best. The only way he could actually make this happen is to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act and declare martial law. Given that he would be doing this for the express purpose of preventing New Yorkers from travelling to Florida, rather than a general order of martial law for a specific public safety or national security purpose, I can’t see this as going well for him.

Stranger
  #75  
Old 03-28-2020, 03:47 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 24,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Quote:
"Restrict travel, because they're having problems down in Florida, a lot of New Yorkers going down. We don't want that," he said.

That's the funniest damn thing Trump's said all year.
  #76  
Old 03-28-2020, 03:56 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,687
Rhode Island is hunting down and quarantining New Yorkers on order of their governor.

https://news.yahoo.com/rhode-island-...211405349.html

Quote:
Rhode Island police began stopping cars with New York plates Friday. On Saturday, the National Guard will help them conduct house-to-house searches to find people who traveled from New York and demand 14 days of self-quarantine.

“Right now we have a pinpointed risk,” Governor Gina Raimondo said. “That risk is called New York City.”
  #77  
Old 03-28-2020, 05:43 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,628
Fortunatly I have Creek liscence plates and a Native ID card.

It confuses people.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 03-28-2020 at 05:46 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017