10 ms·

If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically.

If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. It would be a big hairy mess. In fiction, Tom Clancy explored it in Executive Orders.

the-pigeon 7y ago
But Commerce Clause let's the Federal Government lock down travel between states. This hasn't been tested in the courts but it is what the Federal Government believes. source: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
- SllX 7y ago
  The Commerce Clause is essentially the catch-all for Congressional authority within the enumerated powers for doing the thing they want to do which has not been enumerated to them. This kind of law would have to be tested.
- MockObject 7y ago
  Given that the Commerce Clause "allows" the Congress to regulate even intrastate (or intrahousehold[0] !!) commerce, I'm sure it can be found to allow regulation of intrastate travel. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Seenso 7y ago
> If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. > Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. Interstate closures happen all the time for all kinds of reasons. If someone wants to unconditionally exercise their "constitutional right to travel between states" when epidemic control measures are in place, they can walk or swim.
- SllX 7y ago
  Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land.
  - Seenso 7y ago
    > Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. If you're implementing a lockdown, you'd close more than just the interstates for that exact reason. At a minimum, you'd probably want manned checkpoints on the interstates, state highways, major county roads, and obvious choke points like bridges; and unmanned barriers on the minor roads. > Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land. I'm skeptical that the courts would act as you assume when "the public Safety may require it." Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns.
    - chimeracoder 7y ago
      > Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns. The authority to restrict travel into a state (from an adjacent state) unambiguously lies with the federal government, under even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
      - Seenso 7y ago
        > The authority to restrict travel into a state (from an adjacent state) unambiguously lies with the federal government, under even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Honestly, the scenario I had in mind was intrastate travel restrictions, especially around cities.
maxerickson 7y ago
I don't see how closing airports and highways would be a Constitutional issue. Of course curtailing travel wouldn't stop travel, but it would sure slow it down.
- brewdad 7y ago
  If you want to travel, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. On horseback.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    If you want to communicate with others, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. In person or by written letter. The fundamental rights of a citizen are ideas above their implementation.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      Airports and highways are both heavily regulated, so just asserting that you have fundamental rights to them is a pretty weak argument.
      - protomyth 7y ago
        The US is based on the idea of fundamental rights being the first consideration. Regulation does not give the government the ability to violate those rights. I expect the only consideration for the court is the severity of the situation that would allow the government to temporarily suspend those rights on a massive scale.
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  It is a Constitutional issue because the court has consistently upheld that, as part of a right to freely travel, Americans cannot be deprived of use of the common means of travel of the day without due process. The kind of de facto prohibition on travel you are proposing has been attempted by the government several times in the past in a variety of contexts and the courts have never looked kindly upon it. The court views these "you can still freely travel, but you'll have to walk" style arguments from the government as a transparent attempt to deprive individuals of a well-established Constitutional right absent due process.
rsynnott 7y ago
A right to travel between states, sure. But a right to do so on a particular road? Roads are closed all the time. As I understand it, the Italy "lockdown" isn't actually a case of "we will shoot you if you go there"; it's just making travel incredibly inconvenient. Given that we're probably too late for absolute containment, simply slowing the spread by 90% would be a huge gain, and might be possible through deliberately breaking the transport network.
- C19is20 7y ago
  N italy resident: you are correct. I am free to move, i am not as free to go to milan (2hrs by car). I can walk where i want. Apparently, i am absolutely not able to travel to austria .
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  The Italy lovkdown requires you to self-certify that the reason you need to move between regions is because of work, medical reasons or an “emergency”. You have to fill out a form to do so. Technically if you lie you can be fined or imprisoned for up to three months. There was a case yesterday of some girls lying about an emergency to go to Sardinia, then they bragged about lying on Instagram and, i believe, the police later arrested them for lying on the form.
CydeWeys 7y ago
We also allow exceptional measures during bona fide emergencies, which this is. For example, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but the press was heavily censored during WWII. Similarly, epidemics allow governments to do things they cannot otherwise do. It's all academic anyway. Once there are police checkpoints on major roads shutting them down, what are you gonna do? It could take years for a case to wind through the courts, by which time the epidemic is long over.
jacquesm 7y ago
Indeed, that's fiction. Tom Clancy isn't on the supreme court. You can bet that if the Federal Government decides it they could stop interstate travel pdq no matter what the outrage. Fortunately fiction writers are not going to decide whether a continent suffers in some massive way or not.
- protomyth 7y ago
  It is fiction, but the actual court cases its based on happened and I think the court will have a very tough decision if someone tries to shutdown interstate travel. There is a lot of case law already decided. I doubt its actually possible on a practical level in the US.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I don't think that will fly. Emergencies trump the law. Hence the term 'emergency powers'. It is an illusion to think that given the choice of upholding old law that was not made with those circumstances in mind or letting a bunch of people die needlessly that the law would prevail unchanged. What will happen is that the law will pending the emergency be rescinded and re-instated afterwards. Judges aren't stupid, nor are they robots.
    - jandrewrogers 7y ago
      It absolutely will fly. There are centuries of Supreme Court precedent on this very topic in the US, sometimes under difficult circumstances. Some rights cannot be circumscribed under any circumstances regardless of consequences except in very narrow ways, there are no exceptions for emergencies. The right to travel freely within the US is recognized as one such right. That's like telling Americans that we'll temporarily ban free speech or ban guns -- it isn't negotiable to a large portion of the population and, furthermore, States have considerable power to make any such bans unenforceable. The few historical examples where the courts let enforcement of elementary rights slide for a bit due to "emergency" are almost universally national embarrassments because of the abuses that followed. Judges aren't keen to be named and shamed as one of those people that let that happen for the sake of expediency. Maybe in other countries but not in the US. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how individual rights work in the US.
OJFord 7y ago
I'm not American, so forgive a question informed only by Hollywood - it seems circumstances can relieve you of constitutional rights, such as someone on parole being required to stay in the state, or age or criminal history precluding you from the right to bear arms?
- cafard 7y ago
  In general, conviction of a felony will deprive you of the right to bear arms. In many states, it will deprive you of the right to vote, though this is changing. And, yes, age makes a difference--for voting, for signing contracts.

the-pigeon 7y ago

But Commerce Clause let's the Federal Government lock down travel between states. This hasn't been tested in the courts but it is what the Federal Government believes. source: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

SllX 7y ago
The Commerce Clause is essentially the catch-all for Congressional authority within the enumerated powers for doing the thing they want to do which has not been enumerated to them. This kind of law would have to be tested.
MockObject 7y ago
Given that the Commerce Clause "allows" the Congress to regulate even intrastate (or intrahousehold[0] !!) commerce, I'm sure it can be found to allow regulation of intrastate travel. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Seenso 7y ago

> If they closed airports and put up some checkpoints on the interstate to only allow select traffic through, I imagine that would cut travel pretty dramatically. > Courts tend to believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause gives a constitutional right to travel between states. Interstate closures happen all the time for all kinds of reasons. If someone wants to unconditionally exercise their "constitutional right to travel between states" when epidemic control measures are in place, they can walk or swim.

SllX 7y ago
Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land.
- Seenso 7y ago
  > Or just reroute off an interstate onto a different road between states, which is a lot more likely. If you're implementing a lockdown, you'd close more than just the interstates for that exact reason. At a minimum, you'd probably want manned checkpoints on the interstates, state highways, major county roads, and obvious choke points like bridges; and unmanned barriers on the minor roads. > Then somebody takes the whole thing to the courts, and the courts tell the Feds to knock it off and let people through because they are violating the law of the land. I'm skeptical that the courts would act as you assume when "the public Safety may require it." Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns.
  - chimeracoder 7y ago
    > Also, who says "the feds" have to implement it? It's my understanding that state authorities have broad powers to combat epidemics, too. They're also the ones with the manpower to implement lockdowns. The authority to restrict travel into a state (from an adjacent state) unambiguously lies with the federal government, under even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
    - Seenso 7y ago
      > The authority to restrict travel into a state (from an adjacent state) unambiguously lies with the federal government, under even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Honestly, the scenario I had in mind was intrastate travel restrictions, especially around cities.

maxerickson 7y ago

I don't see how closing airports and highways would be a Constitutional issue. Of course curtailing travel wouldn't stop travel, but it would sure slow it down.

brewdad 7y ago
If you want to travel, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. On horseback.
- protomyth 7y ago
  If you want to communicate with others, you can do so the way our Founding Fathers did. In person or by written letter. The fundamental rights of a citizen are ideas above their implementation.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Airports and highways are both heavily regulated, so just asserting that you have fundamental rights to them is a pretty weak argument.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      The US is based on the idea of fundamental rights being the first consideration. Regulation does not give the government the ability to violate those rights. I expect the only consideration for the court is the severity of the situation that would allow the government to temporarily suspend those rights on a massive scale.
jandrewrogers 7y ago
It is a Constitutional issue because the court has consistently upheld that, as part of a right to freely travel, Americans cannot be deprived of use of the common means of travel of the day without due process. The kind of de facto prohibition on travel you are proposing has been attempted by the government several times in the past in a variety of contexts and the courts have never looked kindly upon it. The court views these "you can still freely travel, but you'll have to walk" style arguments from the government as a transparent attempt to deprive individuals of a well-established Constitutional right absent due process.

rsynnott 7y ago

A right to travel between states, sure. But a right to do so on a particular road? Roads are closed all the time. As I understand it, the Italy "lockdown" isn't actually a case of "we will shoot you if you go there"; it's just making travel incredibly inconvenient. Given that we're probably too late for absolute containment, simply slowing the spread by 90% would be a huge gain, and might be possible through deliberately breaking the transport network.

C19is20 7y ago
N italy resident: you are correct. I am free to move, i am not as free to go to milan (2hrs by car). I can walk where i want. Apparently, i am absolutely not able to travel to austria .
alasdair_ 7y ago
The Italy lovkdown requires you to self-certify that the reason you need to move between regions is because of work, medical reasons or an “emergency”. You have to fill out a form to do so. Technically if you lie you can be fined or imprisoned for up to three months. There was a case yesterday of some girls lying about an emergency to go to Sardinia, then they bragged about lying on Instagram and, i believe, the police later arrested them for lying on the form.

CydeWeys 7y ago

We also allow exceptional measures during bona fide emergencies, which this is. For example, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but the press was heavily censored during WWII. Similarly, epidemics allow governments to do things they cannot otherwise do. It's all academic anyway. Once there are police checkpoints on major roads shutting them down, what are you gonna do? It could take years for a case to wind through the courts, by which time the epidemic is long over.

jacquesm 7y ago

Indeed, that's fiction. Tom Clancy isn't on the supreme court. You can bet that if the Federal Government decides it they could stop interstate travel pdq no matter what the outrage. Fortunately fiction writers are not going to decide whether a continent suffers in some massive way or not.

protomyth 7y ago
It is fiction, but the actual court cases its based on happened and I think the court will have a very tough decision if someone tries to shutdown interstate travel. There is a lot of case law already decided. I doubt its actually possible on a practical level in the US.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I don't think that will fly. Emergencies trump the law. Hence the term 'emergency powers'. It is an illusion to think that given the choice of upholding old law that was not made with those circumstances in mind or letting a bunch of people die needlessly that the law would prevail unchanged. What will happen is that the law will pending the emergency be rescinded and re-instated afterwards. Judges aren't stupid, nor are they robots.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    It absolutely will fly. There are centuries of Supreme Court precedent on this very topic in the US, sometimes under difficult circumstances. Some rights cannot be circumscribed under any circumstances regardless of consequences except in very narrow ways, there are no exceptions for emergencies. The right to travel freely within the US is recognized as one such right. That's like telling Americans that we'll temporarily ban free speech or ban guns -- it isn't negotiable to a large portion of the population and, furthermore, States have considerable power to make any such bans unenforceable. The few historical examples where the courts let enforcement of elementary rights slide for a bit due to "emergency" are almost universally national embarrassments because of the abuses that followed. Judges aren't keen to be named and shamed as one of those people that let that happen for the sake of expediency. Maybe in other countries but not in the US. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how individual rights work in the US.

OJFord 7y ago

I'm not American, so forgive a question informed only by Hollywood - it seems circumstances can relieve you of constitutional rights, such as someone on parole being required to stay in the state, or age or criminal history precluding you from the right to bear arms?

cafard 7y ago
In general, conviction of a felony will deprive you of the right to bear arms. In many states, it will deprive you of the right to vote, though this is changing. And, yes, age makes a difference--for voting, for signing contracts.