Why were Doctors asking Early on CEO Acting POUTS Trump lock down the Country? when he can't select days people shop, get gas ?
Under the Highest law, no one can lock down the U.SA and make people. Shope oi and live like the common person
I meant State Goveroners can by State the even they have to let people shop, and get gas and can't tell you when allowed to go out just limit store hours, the Federal can't tell you to stay home and have you order food from online unless they're paying for it. And Marital Law not allowed since not under attack by a seen enemy
- CraigLv 51 month ago
Why did some health officials say they felt the White House should take action? To know for sure, we would have to ask THEM, but the answer is probably because the COVID-19 problem was clearly going to be one at the national scale, and so it just seemed to make sense.
You assert that "under Highest law, no one can lock down the USA". That's not exactly so. There are a few ways that can be done. State governors are the ones who have the greatest ability, though - not the president.
Specifically, governors are vested by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution with the authorities to order quarantines and to isolate entire geographical districts. They also have the authority to establish curfews. Those two tools make them the most "able" of all public officials to curtail the free movement of residents of their states.
The executive branch of the federal government has two sources of authority to curtail public movement, although both are limited compared to those of the governors. The first is the US Constitution, which gives the president the authority to control interstate commerce. So theoretically, he can close businesses that operate or depend on supplies from across state lines. The second is the 1944 Public Health Service Act, in which Congress gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to act nationwide (within certain limitations) to stem any health emergency. Whether that actually empowers HHS to curtail free movement of residents hasn't been addressed by the courts.
And then there is Martial Law...but that's a whole different thing.
UPDATE: Simply put, Martial Law can be used in peacetime within the borders of the USA - ONLY WHEN WHATEVER'S HAPPENING HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO OPERATE. Whether war has been declared (or undeclared war exists) or not doesn't figure into it. If courts can convene, then the findings of Courts Martial won't be upheld at the end of the day. (Of course, if you've been jailed for two or three years by a Court Martial, before your countersuit results in a civil court releasing you, that is pretty stale justice.)
If the president were to declare a state of emergency in Minneapolis today, nationalize the MN National Guard, and direct its AG to impose martial law and to become military governor of the city, ruling in an ad hoc manner rather than by law, ALL of that COULD happen (theoretically). BUT it would be immediately challenged in the MN Supreme Court. The court's decision would hinge on the question of whether the civil and criminal justice systems in Minneapolis were still functioning at the time of the military takeover. This would all occur within hours of the president's initial order - potentially causing this course of action to become embarrassing for the president.
Returning to your "stay-at-home" question: As you instinctively suspect, the emphasis in the USA upon the idea that government power flows FROM the people, and is specifically limited even at the presidential level, PREVENTS (or at least, doesn't endorse) the authority of a governor from limiting the personal freedom of residents - beyond imposing a curfew. While courts have repeatedly agreed that a governor can use quarantine to stop movement across a particular line, no court has yet upheld the assumption that a governor or a county supervisor can require people to close businesses, wear masks, stay at home, or wash their hands. These are all new ideas that haven't yet been challenged in court. That doesn't mean they would be upheld, nor does it mean they would be discredited. Sometimes it's just a matter of how clever one's lawyer is.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Your talking like the founder father's values didn't get tossed out years ago.