So the shelter in place orders were nothing? You couldn’t be fined or arrested? I honestly don’t know.
In theory, in some places, you could be maybe, depending on the political leanings of the sheriff…
Hardly “making us” stay home.
And of course, if you leave your house and the cops get to you, why you just tell them you’re, I don’t know… yeah grocery shopping. That gets you out of all kinds of jams in these terrible gestapo times.
The term is police power. This is the legal doctrine that says the government has the right to regulate people’s behavior in order to maintain public safety. Several Supreme Court decisions have stated that the government in the United States (national, state, and local) all have police power.
So, you are agreeing with the OPs mom?
I’m sorry, did you confuse you?
I guess I did. Mom is saying that the government had no right to make us stay home and you say the shelter in place orders were “Hardly “making us” stay home.” But apparently those don’t agree with each other? I guess you mean the government could have just the orders didn’t.
There has, so far, been no federal stay at home orders or even mask mandates. So the question of whether it’s Constitutional is, so far, moot. But there is US Supreme Court case law that touches on this. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts the court said
. . .in every well-ordered society . . . the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.
So the federal govt does have the authority to curtail individual freedoms in certain instances. But, the court goes on to say that these powers are neither broad nor unilateral. They need to be tailored to the specific need of the circumstance and are subject to the scrutiny of the court even in emergencies.
So, that brings us to the States. Not all of the States have enacted such orders, and the one that did, did it in their own way. Each state has different laws regarding their emergency powers. Just about every state that did enact such orders saw a state supreme court case about them. Some courts upheld the orders and some struck them down. The most interesting case, to my mind would be Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm. In which the court struck down the entirety of the order imposed by the State Secy of Health. The interesting part is that the court never said that the state didn’t have the authority to impose such orders just that they went about it in the wrong way. That the order should have either come from the governor with the approval of the legislature or from the legislature directly.
The tl/dr version is that both the state and federal govts do have the constitutional authority to restrict freedom in an emergency, but those orders are subject to a lot of scrutiny.
The government has the right. It’s that simple. And the people have the right to vote out the government which makes them stay at home. That, too, is pretty simple.
Your mother does not have the ‘right’ to defy the Constitutionally established authority without potentially suffering the consequence. That, too, is part of the American experience (cf. Thoreau).
No, I agree the government has the right. I was just confused by bobot’s line of discussion.
What does your mother mean by “free country”? Many people make an argument that they can do anything they want regardless of how at affects anyone else because “this is a free country.” It’s a myth. We have certain very specific freedoms, which is great, because some countries don’t have those. But we do not live in an anarchy, and we elect our government for the very reason that their job is to ensure the welfare of the public, even if it means some restrictions on what some individuals would rather do.
I don’t think it’s nitpicking to say it’s more the opposite. The government has specific powers to limit freedom.
My understanding is that, in the U.S., very few (if any) of the stay at home / shelter in place orders had any legal teeth behind them. Generally, they still allowed for people to leave home for “essential reasons,” which included grocery shopping, going to the doctor, going to the drug store, etc., as well as going outside to exercise.
While I’m sure that one could find a few examples of U.S. cities or states that tried to do some level of police enforcement of them, on the whole, they have been more “advice” than legal orders, and Americans were not generally being pulled over on the street and asked to explain why they were out, nor issued tickets or fines (much less facing arrest) for not obeying the orders.
(Orders to close or limit non-essential businesses, such as restaurants, bars, and gyms, are a different issue, and don’t keep any individual from leaving their home.)
A standard ration card in WW2 got ya 3 gallons of gas a week, which is as much a stay at home order as any initiated during 2020. In addition, the national speed limit was reduced to 35mph. The US government even stopped the manufacture of automobiles on 1-1-1942 and did not allow their resumption until mid-1945.
Wearing a mask doesn’t even measure to the above.
Neeever mind…
Pretty sure there’s still a whole bunch of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who could give you an extremely empirical lesson in just how much the federal government can restrict your movements if they want. Like George Takei, born in Los Angeles, who was interned at the Tule Lake camp during WW2 along with his mom who was born in Sacramento.
Short answer, yes, they do have the right, the authority and the power to restrict your movements. They can also revoke your passport, which nails ya foot to the floor quite effectively.
It doesn’t have to be an emergency. The government, for example, can tell people they can’t drive their car above a certain speed. This is clearly a restriction on individual freedom. And there’s no ongoing emergency to justify speed limits.
But the government’s police power allows it to set limits like this and enforce them in order to protect the general well being of the public. And individuals cannot argue that it’s a free country and they can drive as fast as they want to. (Okay, they can argue this. But it’s not an argument they’re going to win.)
There actually is a mask mandate going on up here in Wisconsin (IIRC it’s supposed to extend until June). Not sure if it’s being mandated in other states, but it’s been going on up here since August.
I think there is a difference between the govt’s ability to pass laws that may restrict individual freedoms to promote the general welfare. And an executive’s ability to declare an order in an emergency situation. It’s this difference that lies at the crux of the argument.
As I read it, that is what the WI supreme court said. That the power to enact an emergency order does lie with the Governor (not the State Secy of Health) and that once the order is declared it passes to the legislature to either codify it into law or reject it. The Gov has the power, but it’s temporary, and it’s subject to approval by the legislature.
Here in IL, too, and many other states. But, nothing on the federal level. . . so far. . .
Wearing a face covering in public places or when working . Any individual who is over age two and able to medically tolerate a face-covering (a mask or cloth face-covering) shall be required to cover their nose and mouth with a face-covering when in a public place and unable to maintain a six-foot social distance. Face-coverings are required in public indoor spaces such as stores.
It’s not the opposite at all. In fact, you seem to be in complete agreement with my closing, which was that the government can put “some restrictions on what some individuals would rather do.”
There are countries that lock up and make disappear journalists who criticize the government, prevent people from practicing a religion other than the official state religion, censor information on the Internet, prohibit public protests, lock up political dissidents up for years with no charges and no trials.
We have certain very specific freedoms, which is great, because some countries don’t have those. But that doesn’t make us a “free country” where you can do whatever you damn well please.
During WWII some cities had blackouts to prepare for potential enemy bombing runs. People complied without whining about socialism. Did rationing gas and tires make the US any less free? Was it socialism? It would be nice if right wingers would spend less time whining about their “rights” being infringed upon and more time owning up to their responsibilities.