Moderating
There has been a bit of a hijack over “when was America Great (MAGA)”- let’s drop that.
Certainly government has the right to restrict certain freedoms for the common good. You don’t have the right to pour mercury in a stream. You don’t have the right to use leaded gas in your cars or paint with lead-based paint. These are all reasonable restrictions on freedom to protect the public health. Why should wearing a mask or temporarily closing or restricting businesses for the reason of containing a dread disease be any different?
Though, she was not arrested for leaving her home during a stay-at-home order, or for not wearing a mask. She was arrested for operating her salon business at a time when such businesses had been ordered to remain closed.
While arrested is arrested, a business closure order is somewhat different from an order that all people remain sequestered in their homes.
The point is that they DO have the authority to do it, right wrong or sideways. Legality is changeable and subject to random whims as we’ve seen over and over and the only laws that matter are the ones those in power wish to enforce. We had federal agents in unmarked rental cars wearing no identifying marks or badges grabbing people off the streets and detaining them all summer here in Portland so pardon me if I’m not overly impressed with the moral rigor of the federal government.
And kindly refrain from telling me what I “don’t want” to do. You certainly don’t have that authority.
The Germans invaded the U.S. twice, once in each of the World Wars.
I think it’s questionable to call it an invasion when foreign agents are sent into a country for espionage, sabotage, or even terrorist attacks.
From your link:
Generally when people talk about “boots on the ground” they mean more than 16 boots, and preferably boots that weren’t already there.
Oh, I agree completely. My point in that post was that we have lots of freedoms that many others lack. But it still doesn’t mean we have absolute freedom, as in “I can do whatever I want because THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY!”
I think the OP has been adequately answered. States have full police powers and during an emergency can certainly institute lockdowns. And if the federal government can put natural born citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps, I think they can order a lockdown.
But a more interesting question is who wields that power, the executive (president of governor) or the legislature. What would do give the executive the power to declare a state of emergency which the legislature would have 30 days to ratify. There would also have to be provisions for an emergency so drastic that there is no legislature or they cannot meet.
The other issue that commonly comes up in this country is whether a particular form of police power is held by the federal government or the state governments.
But in relation to the OP, these are just questions about what particular section of the government holds the police power. There’s no question about whether police power exists.
We should have known this because…?
True. On the other hand, opening her salon encouraged others to ignore the stay-at-home order.
All in all, an epic fail…the governor changes his order, Ted Cruz gets a haircut, Sarah Palin stops by. “Seriously, follow the rules! Unless you don’t want to!”
I don’t think it’s really a question of enumerated powers or federalism (although I tend to believe that an internal lockdown would be outside the scope of federal power). I think it’s probably framed as a question of individual liberty – whether it’s described as the long-recognized freedom of movement, or a fifth or fourteenth amendment due process concern, or even a fourth amendment seizure.
You may recall the 2014 “Ebola nurses” and the question of whether you could force an individual to quarantine simply because they might have been exposed to a contagious disease. (No one seriously questioned the state government’s ability to quarantine people who were actually infected or, even, demonstrably exposed). I’m sure there were threads on the subject on the SDMB, and there was plenty of lively dispute over the wisdom of the quarantine policy. But, there was also dispute (and litigation) over the constitutionality of the policy. And, as I recall, one of the nurses sued claiming that the mandatory quarantine constituted, inter alia an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, an unlawful seizure, and a false imprisonment. From what I recall, no one really knew what the limit would be, but it wasn’t considered an unserious question.
I suspect that’s part of the reason that you haven’t seen any real efforts at trying to “make [people] stay at home.” The state orders have primarily regulated businesses (which states have a broad right to do) and other similar things.
The whole “I can do xxx because it’s a free country” is simply what you hear from a child or young teenager to their parents when they want to do something stupid.
Interesting that the OP is apparently only 15, but shows more judgement, maturity and understanding of the realities of the world than his mother. It bodes will for his/her future.
Perhaps I should have said, “FYI, …”
If you’re in government and dealing with the public you’ll also hear, “I’m a taxpayer. You work for me!”
Reminds me of one civilian employee at my last post when I was in the military. Said employee was trying to get me to issue him a voucher for government travel, said travel not permissible at government expense. His comment to me was, “Don’t you realize that that the military is run by civilians in this country?” My response, “Of course, but you’re not one of those civilians running it”.
Are you allowed to hand them a penny and say “Here’s your full refund. Now piss off!”?
When people say the US is “free,” they pretty much mean that there are not arbitrary nor capricious restrictions on people’s movements just to keep the government one step ahead of everyone, or as a sort of dick-flex.
We are free-er than many other countries that require not only a passport, but a visa to leave the country. US citizens in possession of a valid passport (and ticket money) can leave the country at any time, and travel to any country where an entrance visa is not required, on a whim. The government does not keep tabs on your movements.
There are lots of other examples of ways in which the US government is much more laissez-faire than the governments of other countries. In the aggregate, the US does appear to be free, in comparison to other places.
But as someone said, it’s not an anarchy. It’s a society. You agree to do certain things in order to live in harmony with the people around us. Freedom from the kind of conflict that would constantly arise without basic rules is another kind of freedom.