5 ms·
For the USA at least, wouldn't imposing a ban rather than a recommendation be a violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly?
by wincy 7y ago
For the USA at least, wouldn't imposing a ban rather than a recommendation be a violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly?
- t-writescode 7y agoNot a lawyer, I think it would depend on the exact laws and rulings around martial law. Curfews are a thing, but I don’t know if they’re constitutional.
- jtdev 7y agoSure, a recommendation seems good too... anything rather than just burying our heads in the sand.
- close04 7y agoAren’t some authorizations still needed to organize larger events? I think that’s the ban, no more concerts, sold out football matches, etc.
- ceejayoz 7y agoSCOTUS has repeatedly recognized quarantine as an exception.
- PopePompus 7y agoIf the CDC merely urged that all large gatherings be cancelled, that would probably result in the cancellation of 95% of them, with no constitutional implications.
- macintux 7y agoCan they at this point? It seems like their authority has been emasculated.
- Loughla 7y agoI don't understand what you mean by this.
- morelisp 7y ago"Emasculated" is a bizarre word to use, but I assume it's in reference to Trump putting Pence, rather than anyone at the CDC or HHS, in charge of official messaging around COVID-19.
- Loughla 7y agoAh, I've been on a politics fast for a few days, so I missed that. Without devolving into an inevitable political shouting match, what would the purpose of that move be?
- erikerikson 7y agoSignaling that it's being taken seriously at the "highest levels" to support confidence?
- evanelias 7y agoI wonder if it could also be an insurance strategy: if things go south, Pence takes all the blame and is booted from the 2020 ticket?
- Loughla 7y agoPence exists to lock down the evangelical vote, there's no way he'll become a fall man. Although, that's traditional thinking, and this president is anything but traditional. So maybe you're right.
- macintux 7y agoVP Pence has been given veto authority over all messaging, and the CDC’s funding in this area was gutted early in the administration.
- duxup 7y agoI'm pretty sure the CDC can "say" what they want.
- boring_twenties 7y agoYou'd hope so, but then we have this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/us-coronavirus-pence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/us-coronaviru... tl;dr- "directing them to coordinate all statements and public appearances with the office of Vice President Mike Pence"
- briandear 7y agoThe CDC budget has not been cut. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485025-ap-fact-checkers-find-biden-bloomberg-paint-distorted-picture-on-trump-cdc https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485025-ap-fact-checkers-f...
- macintux 7y agoThe truth is more complex. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump-united-states-public-health-emergency-response/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cletus 7y agoIt’s really unfortunate that the word “right” is used here because no “right” is absolute. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can falsely yell “active shooter” in a crowded theater. Freedom to bear arms doesn’t mean you’re allowed to own nuclear weapon or a surface to air missile battery. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean you can go where you want, when you want. Other needs and limits can preempt these “rights” so they’re not really right at all.
- tzs 7y agoRestrictions on that right are subject to "strict scrutiny", which is the highest standard of judicial review. To satisfy it, the government has to show that it has a compelling state interest and that their solution is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Curfews for public safety after natural disasters like fires and floods, or to prevent spread of disease, or in times of extreme civil unrest like riots have been found to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Since a ban on large gatherings is less of an imposition on your freedom of assembly than a curfew, I'd expect that it would be allowed.
- vikramkr 7y agoLegal eagle did a video on Youtube that came out yesterday that seemed to suggest that the government has leeway in cases of pandemics (sort of like in wartime) that it wouldn't have otherwise. It might technically be unconstitutional under some readings of it, but SCOTUS might rule that it's warranted.
- ceejayoz 7y agoBasically: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
- arkades 7y agoThere's an awful lot of case law to date that allows for public health departments to violate constitutional rights to address a public health emergency. The legal right to quarantine is pretty much predicated on "for the good of society, your constitutional rights are out the window." I hope I don't sound critical of this. I'm not. I'm in favor of empowering public health departments, with accountability and oversight and judicial review, to do what is needed to prevent massive tragedy. I'm just putting it bluntly: our case law on this topic is reasonably well-settled, and one-sided, as pertains to epidemics. (Now, as pertains to vaccinating...)
- throwaway55554 7y agoIt can be regulated if it impinges upon my rights.
- amanaplanacanal 7y agoI believe the current legal interpretation of freedom of assembly in the US is that it only applies if your assembly is ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’.