# Constitutionality of bans of \> 10 person gatherings **URL:** \ **Category:** The Quarantine Zone\ **Tags:** covid-quarantine\ **Created:** [March 17, 2020, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689 "2020-03-17T23:17:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ulysses](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulysses/32/16083_2.png) [@Ulysses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulysses)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/41 "2020-03-22T18:20:53Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > “what EXPERTS deem necessary”. Boy, is that ever a slippery slope! Who is an “expert”? Who decides who an “expert” is? What if those “in authority” only choose to listen to whichever “expert” aligns with their way of thinking or with what laws they want enforced? The courts decide. If you’re asking in good faith and genuinely interested, start with the Daubert standard and FRE 702. > **[Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702)** ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/42 "2020-03-22T20:09:15Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yeah, you fight the power, buddy. Thanks for your valiant attempt to answer the questions. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/43 "2020-03-22T20:27:18Z")
[LegalEagle’s Real Law Review(YouTube.com channel): “Can the US Legally Quarantine the Coronavirus?”](https://youtu.be/IF8MswEQS7w) Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/44 "2020-03-22T20:29:45Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > In this case epidemiologists and virologists are the “experts”, and while the may not have all of the answers they have the training and experience to make the best recommendations based upon past experience. > > Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, or do you actually have a coherent objection to the measures being imposed to reduce the impact of the outbreak? > > Stranger I am simply asking who or what group will be in charge of choosing which epidemiologists and virologists to listen to. It is highly improbable that you will get a clear and concise set of steps from 100% of the top epidemiologists and virologists in the country (or world). I would hope that a committee of elected officials (the people’s representatives) make the final decision by voting for what steps to take to fight the outbreak after listening to some top epidemiologists and virologists. As you know, the US Constitution is perfectly set up to handle such a crisis and there is no reason to assume it is not. ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/45 "2020-03-22T20:47:21Z")
> [@Ulysses](#): > > The courts decide. If you’re asking in good faith and genuinely interested, start with the Daubert standard and FRE 702. > > [Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702) I appreciate your answer, but I really have to wonder why you feel that you have to ask me if I’m “asking in good faith” and whether or not I am “genuinely interested” in an answer. Did you assume I was asking the questions I did as a joke or something less than serious? The country is facing a serious crisis, but I want to be sure that when the US emerges out of this situation, we return to a country just as free as we were before the virus struck. As you know, governments never let a good crisis good to waste and the citizens have to be vigilant against any slide toward tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![Ulysses](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulysses/32/16083_2.png) [@Ulysses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulysses)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/46 "2020-03-22T21:05:58Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > I appreciate your answer, but I really have to wonder why you feel that you have to ask me if I’m “asking in good faith” and whether or not I am “genuinely interested” in an answer. > > Did you assume I was asking the questions I did as a joke or something less than serious? > > The country is facing a serious crisis, but I want to be sure that when the US emerges out of this situation, we return to a country just as free as we were before the virus struck. > > As you know, governments never let a good crisis good to waste and the citizens have to be vigilant against any slide toward tyranny. The caveat was genuine but not meant as an assumption about your motive. I could’ve left it out. I’m sorry that iI came off presumptive. I agree with being vigilant about our freedoms and your hope we come out of this with our liberty. Did the info about the Daubert standard and federal rules assuage your concerns about expert testimony? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/47 "2020-03-22T21:15:42Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > I am simply asking who or what group will be in charge of choosing which epidemiologists and virologists to listen to. It is highly improbable that you will get a clear and concise set of steps from 100% of the top epidemiologists and virologists in the country (or world). In the US, that would be medical scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (DMID) to develop specific polices and plans, and the Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service to put said plans into operation in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the applicable agencies of the various states and major municipalities. > [@Mangosteen](#): > > I would hope that a committee of elected officials (the people’s representatives) make the final decision by voting for what steps to take to fight the outbreak after listening to some top epidemiologists and virologists. As you know, the US Constitution is perfectly set up to handle such a crisis and there is no reason to assume it is not. Directing an emergency response action is essentially an executive function. The primary purpose of Congress is to pass laws and make funding available; expecting every policy decision to come to a Congressional vote would be assuring inaction and paralysis. > [@Mangosteen](#): > > The country is facing a serious crisis, but I want to be sure that when the US emerges out of this situation, we return to a country just as free as we were before the virus struck. > > As you know, governments never let a good crisis good to waste and the citizens have to be vigilant against any slide toward tyranny. There is always the concern that a threat, and particularly an existential threat like major terrorism or pandemic, can be used as a pretext for violating or restricting the rights of individuals. This was certainly the case after September 11, 2001, when the USA PATRIOT Act suddenly ‘appeared’ in its gargantuan extent of both physical size and breadth of expansion of government surveillance permissions and FISA court authority barely a month after the attack despite the fact that no one had time to read the bill in its entirety before voting it into law. But these specific guidelines of “social distancing”, closing bars, restaurants, and other non-essential businesses, and putting major metropolitan areas and affected states under a voluntary lockdown are basic actions consistent with trying limit the spread of the virus and blunt the peak of COVID-19 critical care cases. These are measures that epidemiologists across the board agree upon as fundamental in response to an outbreak because absent of a vaccine or effective pharmaceutical intervention it is the only way to effectively reduce fatalities. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/48 "2020-03-22T22:38:41Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > But these specific guidelines of “social distancing”, closing bars, restaurants, and other non-essential businesses, and putting major metropolitan areas and affected states under a voluntary lockdown are basic actions consistent with trying limit the spread of the virus and blunt the peak of COVID-19 critical care cases. These are measures that epidemiologists across the board agree upon as fundamental in response to an outbreak because absent of a vaccine or effective pharmaceutical intervention it is the only way to effectively reduce fatalities. What if a group of scientists (quite correctly) concluded that cars kill nearly 30,000 Americans per year and thus constitute a “public health crisis” or other such term? And let’s further state that the President agrees. If we apply neutral judicial principles to the two cases, then why couldn’t the President ban cars for a “limited period of time” until they could be made safer? IOW, this seems like a policy choice. The executive thinks that X number of deaths is an acceptable cost than having Y restrictions. One could say that about most everything in life, no? Cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, personal exercise, etc. I am trying to find a principle that can be applied across the board that allows the President to make that choice in this situation where he would not be able to in all other situations, pretty much bypassing democracy. The most obvious is that it is of limited duration. Could the President ban (or mandate) all of those things for a limited time, you know, to better inform people until the “crisis has passed”? Also, I agree that such things as Freedom of Assembly are not absolute, but saying that they are not absolute does not equal being able to ban all assemblies entirely. Short version: I see too many differences in these requirements than I do in past emergency declarations to simply chalk it up to general emergency or quarantine powers. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/49 "2020-03-22T23:05:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Short version: I see too many differences in these requirements than I do in past emergency declarations to simply chalk it up to general emergency or quarantine powers. The difference is that while the number of automobile deaths are tragic (and [reducible](https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html)), the numbers are relatively stable and will not increase exponentially if restrictions are not imposed. It is a risk that we collectively accept because of the benefits of modern transportation, and various regulations and laws from mandatory safety features to DUI laws are applied in efforts to further reduce unnecessary deaths. Simply stopping all automotive travel for an indefinite period would have no impact upon the number of deaths when the country returned to operation. By contrast, the goal of travel restrictions, “shelter-in-place” orders, and isolation & quarantine protocols is to prevent the epidemic from peaking so abruptly that medical facilities and personnel are overwhelmed with the quantity of cases that could be saved if resources are available. Do you really not understand the difference between a calculated risk like allowing motor vehicle operation and a temporary restriction to prevent an viral epidemic sweeping through the population, or do you just feel that your personal right to do whatever you want should trump the only effective response to this outbreak? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/50 "2020-03-22T23:14:56Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The difference is that while the number of automobile deaths are tragic (and [reducible](https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html)), the numbers are relatively stable and will not increase exponentially if restrictions are not imposed. It is a risk that we collectively accept because of the benefits of modern transportation, and various regulations and laws from mandatory safety features to DUI laws are applied in efforts to further reduce unnecessary deaths. Simply stopping all automotive travel for an indefinite period would have no impact upon the number of deaths when the country returned to operation. By contrast, the goal of travel restrictions, “shelter-in-place” orders, and isolation & quarantine protocols is to prevent the epidemic from peaking so abruptly that medical facilities and personnel are overwhelmed with the quantity of cases that could be saved if resources are available. > > Do you really not understand the difference between a calculated risk like allowing motor vehicle operation and a temporary restriction to prevent an viral epidemic sweeping through the population, or do you just feel that your personal right to do whatever you want should trump the only effective response to this outbreak? > > Stranger 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? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/51 "2020-03-23T00:36:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. > [@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? 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-34)). 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 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/52 "2020-03-23T00:39:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/53 "2020-03-23T00:53:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/54 "2020-03-23T01:22:28Z")
I meant to say nuclear bomb - not a full exchange. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/55 "2020-03-23T01:46:35Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/56 "2020-03-23T01:59:56Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/57 "2020-03-23T03:46:58Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I didn’t say _offices_ don’t have to close , I said _businesses_ don’t have to close. > \ > 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. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2020, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/58 "2020-03-23T04:57:02Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2020, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/59 "2020-03-24T16:00:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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? > [@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? ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2020, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689/60 "2020-03-24T17:53:29Z")
NM [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-bans-of-10-person-gatherings/849689.md?page=4)