This is not to debate the merits of said bans, or the ability to enforce them. I am just wondering if Governors can legally ban gatherings of 10 or more people.
I believe there is a health and safety exception of the First Amendment, but how low does it go? I guess it might also depend on if the folks are gathering to protest.
Mods: please move if you think it is wise.
Brian
I was wondering that myself. Also, banning bars and restaurants from serving patrons in-house seems like governmental overreach, even if it is a good idea.
Some quick poking around online suggests that declaring a state of emergency is what allows them to set restrictions like this.
In Colorado, they are doing it through the department of health not even through the Governor’s office. I can’t find the clip from the news tonight where they walked through how it was legal.
A couple days ago I posted a cite (sorry, can’t find now) of an Illinois city’s State of Emergency declaration that authorized closings, quarantines, and real property forfeiture. That’s a matter of state constitutions, not federal.
But the Federal Constitution over rules any state law.
In theory, according to the ninth and tenth amendments, Federal law only overrules state law in those areas that the Constitution specifically grants power to the Feds. In reality, however, you are unfortunately correct.
That’s what I’m thinking is going to happen. The health department is going to be able to write them up and can pull their license. Remember, the health dept can close you down for certain violations, the building department can close you down for certain violations, fire, electrical and water inspections can cause problems. There’s no real reason why they common council can’t pass a temporary law that allows the health department to shut you down for this.
People are crying about this violating their right to assemble, but no one says that when the fire dept or building inspector sets a limit on how many people are allowed inside. I get that people don’t feel like this is quite as big of a deal of a floor collapsing or not being able to get out quickly enough during a fire, but it’s still a big deal. Also, it’s temporary and the sooner people quit pushing back, the faster it’ll be over with.
Assuming what’s being done is unconstitutional, can a governor suspend federal protected constitutional rights by declaring a state of emergency in their state?
From what I’ve seen, the president declaring a SoE, allows them to suspend certain constitutional rights, but I’m not clear on if a governor (or even a mayor) doing the same suspends only state rights or if it covers federal rights as well.
All ten of the Ten Amendments are routinely violated, with the courts ruling that compelling circumstances justify the infringement.
All ten of the ten amendments? You’re sure about that?
So help me, I’ll be deep in the cold cold ground before they quarter soldiers in my house!
There is a long standing legal precedent that Constitutionally-recognized freedoms may be restricted in limited ways in the interest of public safety provided the restrictions are limited in scope, specific to the nature of the threat or hazard, and not applied arbitrarily or with obvious political bias (e.g. applying to a specific minority group or demographic). This includes freedom of press and expression (gag orders, restrictions on volatile speech or written word by individuals), right to bear arms (restrictions on type of weapons or accessories deemed to be a particular hazard, requirements for waiting periods and background checks), protections against search & seizure or quartering of soldiers in private homes (eminent domain, asset forefeiture,…I can’t come up with a modern example of quartering but it’s probably happened at some point), and right of assembly (proscribed ‘protest zones’, dispersing crowds with the potential to riot), freedom of movement (travel restrictions or evacuation orders in response to a natural disaster or attack). Of course, as virtually any minority person or anyone subject to unjustified asset forfeiture can tell you, the protection afforded by the Constitutional rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is dependent upon the willingness of law enforcement and the court system to enforce those protections, the variance of which is all too common.
In this case there is a specific public health reason to limit the size of gatherings and prohibit mass gatherings, and I strongly suspect that courts will find against any legal challenge based upon the recognized threat that unconfined mass spread of a likely airborne pathogen poses to public safety.
Stranger
Just chiming in to say, it’s so nice to see you posting again, Stranger. Your voice has been missed.
Where’s the song from «Welcome Back Kotter» when you need it!?!
Probably not constitutional. But, four lawyers and the entire Supreme Court can’t meet to overturn it.
Sure, that’s happened already, but I think the OP set the bar as low as ten for a reason. I think they were asking how low the limits could go before it started being unreasonable. Or is there no limit to the limits?
I’m just going to keep saying this.
Everyone shut up and listen to Stranger.
Don’t think they go far (Judge already denied immediate injunction)
Brian
Given that the bar on what constitutes an arrestable crime has been raised:
“I’m in for murder. What you in for?”
“Played a game of pick-up soccer”
“That’s tough…well they’re letting me out on my own recognizance. Good luck”
State senator(or rep) in an interview was complaining about the 10 person limit (in Wisconsin). Something like “what about big churches where folks could sit 8 feet apart”
(I didn’t listen to the whole thing, just caught part of it)
Brian