I quartered troops in my house. They rented the rooms downstairs. Kept quiet, too.
I’m willing to quarter troops in my house, provided that I also get to hang and draw them.
A New Hampshire court has ruled that the governor can ban meetings up to 50 people. No written opinion yet, and no appeal yet, so YMMV, but it’s one of the first rulings I found.
Cite.
I work with (not for but with) a lot of clubs, hotels and restaurants and as I was reviewing the coming weeks, I did ask about this, everyone of them told me point, the city said they would pull their food, hotel or liquor license and the results the same.
And since you can pull it for no reason while you’re investigating, again the result is the same.
I do suspect the longer this goes on the more and more we’ll see lawsuits brought forth especially when the businesses lose money.
I agree with your legal assessment. However, from my study quarantines have been related to specific individuals or groups of individuals who you have a fear may be infected and spread disease.
Typhoid Mary could be imprisoned even though she did nothing wrong. This ship where there was a smallpox outbreak can be refused disembarking.
However, I see nothing in history, or in the spirit of any quarantine law where you can pass something like the “shelter in place” in NY, NJ, IL, CA and coming to a state near you. That is in effect that everyone is quarantined, even if proven not to be sick, so we can stop you from catching it and then next passing it on.
That seems unprecedented to me.
It’s not a quarantine. People are allowed to go out to obtain food, medicine and other necessities. They’re even allowed get some exercise.
Exactly. Quarantine and isolation are covered by specific laws (see the CDC webpage on Legal Authority for Isolation and Quarantine. Within states, there is considerable authority of the governor to place restrictions upon movement and travel after a state of emergency is declared. In addition, as Carryon notes, state and municipal governments can pull licenses, effectively shuttering those businesses and reducing the impetus for people to go out.
Of course, anybody can bring suit over almost anything given they can show some kind of cause, and it is possible that a court may side plaintiff, but as previously noted, there is a 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. Restriction upon travel and nighttime curfews are routinely applied during natural disasters to enable responders to travel unimpeded and prevent looting. And frankly, all of the restrictions that California and New York have applied so far are essentially voluntary in nature; no one has been arrested and there are no applied penalties to individuals.
There are certainly times in which these kinds of restrictions should be challenged, such as when non-violent political expression is restricted to a “freedom zone” several blocks away from the event it is protesting, but restriction of movement and assembly during a viral epidemic is really not one of them. When we start having thousands of people dying because the SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread so rapidly through the population, the questions are going to be why the federal and state governments didn’t act more quickly and effectively to stop the spread, and there are many legitimate questions to be asked in that vein.
Stranger
A local low-life bar stayed open. Sheriffs came to close them down and execute the state order to pull their liquor license. I doubt the barkeep will get unemployment checks. And now the scum will have to loiter elsewhere. Hey, bears are emerging from hibernation and likely won’t worry about catching COVID from their snacks. C’mon guys, cough louder, so the hairier folk can find you.
They can ban whatever they whatever to ban - it’s just words that don’t have any meaning until they enforce it. And from what I can see, mostly how they are (or actually were) trying to enforce it in NY is when the restaurants and bars were still open, the capacity was cut in half and if you had too many people you got whatever the normal consequence was for being over capacity. If a restaurant had a capacity of 100, it was cut to 50. Bowling alleys were closed to avoid what is basically a large gathering of people. Some areas are closing public parks to avoid large gatherings in parks.
And what's going on in NY is not a quarantine- I can go grocery shopping, and go out for exercise or to my mother's house (which I am not doing) or to a restaurant (seating capacity now 0) to pick up food (and possibly alcoholic beverages, as places with a liquor license can sell the with a food order to go). People are saying the governor closed all non-essential businesses down - but that's not actually what happened. He closed businesses where people gather ( gyms, bowling alleys,restaurants, hair salons) and of course, the essential businesses can stay open as can single-employee businesses - but the other non-essential businesses don't have to actually close. They simply have to allow employees to work from home, which is not possible for every person in every business but is absolutely possible for some.
It’s actually almost the opposite of a quarantine - there is nowhere that I am not permitted to go. There are few places that are open that I want to go - but that’s not placing a restriction on me.
A friend of mine owns a bar, the first day (Tuesday) when she essentially had to close, a few cops stopped in to pick up some food. Out of curiosity, she asked what would have happened if she had a full crowd in there and their response was a shoulder shrug and a ‘we don’t know, no one told us yet’. I think that’s part of it, this is happening so fast that no one knows who is supposed to be enforcing it and how to handle violations. The WI governor has since said that, if it comes down to it he does have the jurisdiction to deal with violations by way of a $500 fine and/or a month in jail, but he does see to be doing his best to encourage people to abide by the restrictions so he doesn’t have to go that far.
It might not be a quarantine in the strictest sense, but they’re still asking people to keep their distance from each other.
It think you’re conflating ‘closed’ with ‘closed to the public’.
In either case, this seems like an odd point to argue against.
Huh?. You literally just said “He closed businesses where people gather ( gyms, bowling alleys,restaurants, hair salons)”
Huh? So, are you allowed to go to the hair salon or not? What about bowling or the gym? In one post you stated both that there’s no where that you’re not permitted to go and listed a bunch of places that you’re not permitted to do.
Unless you’re just arguing over the technically definition of quarantine, I’m not understanding.
No, I’m not conflating the two - many businesses or parts of them were never open to the public to begin with. It doesn’t just apply to retail, it applies to every non-essential business with more than one employee. So a payroll processing company that doesn’t have clients show up in person cannot bring their staff into the office - but they can set up their employees to work from home and avoid actually closing. There are people who are conflating the two, saying that the governor has closed all non essential businesses, and that’s why I brought up the distinction.
It’s about the definition of quarantine. The restrictions are not on individuals. There is no restriction on me leaving my house and going to the hair salon - but the salon is not allowed to be open. The police will not arrest me or give me a ticket if I attend a large wedding- but the party will be broken up and the venue may be fined. If I was actually under quarantine, I wouldn’t be permitted to leave my house. Typhoid Mary wasn’t under quarantine when she was asked not to work as a cook - she was under quarantine when she was confined to North Brother Island.
I agree with Stranger. The right to assembly is fundamental but not absolute. As I recall, it can be limited so long as the limitation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. As always, the outcome likely would turn on the specific facts of the case. Consider two different scenarios:
The courts would likely uphold a general ban with reasonable exceptions for essential purposes that only lasts during a limited period of weeks and was informed by experts who opine that the risk of pandemic spread is high in such situations.
On the other hand, the courts would likely strike down a ban that continues beyond what experts deem necessary, applies arbitrarily to select groups of people, or is selectively enforced in a way that results in a disproportionate impact (e.g., only limiting gatherings in urban areas so as to impact only non-whites).
This is all just beyond nitpicky.
But if you want to go down that road, your definition of quarantine is flawed. Being under quarantine doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to leave some specific space (ie your house, a hospital room etc). It can mean that, as in 'I’ve been quarantined to my house". But that’s not the overall definition of it. It simply means restraining your normal activities to prevent the spread of a disease. Federal law even defines it as separating yourself from others.
I have no idea why it’s important that you make sure everyone understands that offices aren’t closed, they’re just not allowing people inside or that you can go hangout behind the bowling alley, you just can’t go bowling.
Having said that, regardless of the exact word being used, every news report I see about makes it clear there’s no restrictions to leaving your house. The issue is people congregating and potentially making spreading the virus.
Also, regarding not getting arrested or fined for violating that, yes, you can. The nature of the penalty and how it’s (directly or indirectly) handled, is going to vary wildly from state to state. There’s also federal laws regarding it.
Please stop. I enjoy most of his posts but he is not an epidemiologist or a Constitutional law expert.
Because of what you did here - I didn’t say offices don’t have to close , I said businesses don’t have to close. It’s not the same thing - there are businesses with people who work 100% from home under normal circumstances and even those who don’t normally allow WFH are allowing it now.
I’m pretty sure there isn’t any state that has imposed penalties on individuals not known to have been exposed for not practicing “social distancing” - but 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”. Although I’m not certain what California or Massachusetts is doing , I do know the police are not arresting individuals in New York and since that’s where I am, the police will not arrest me.
“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?
Can A Governor Legally Order 40 Million People To Stay Home?!
Yeah, you fight the power, buddy.
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
:rolleyes: