5 ms·

Pretty sure contravenes constitution but whatever.

sneak 7y ago
Governments have a lot more power in the immediate moment than we like to confront; it isn’t until weeks or months later that courts (sometimes) get around to stopping them.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... (CDC: Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine) TLDR Legal and constitutional.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  According to the CDC. IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from eroding the trust of those lied to.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    The epidemic will be over by the time you're in front of a judge. The argument is academic.
    - gpm 7y ago
      Preliminary injunctions can happen pretty quickly...
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        No judge is going to sign off on an injunction when an epidemic is raging nationwide, with a large number of confirmed cases on the west coast [1]. I'll eat crow if you find one with that much chutzpa. [1] https://infection2020.com/ https://infection2020.com/
        munk-a 7y ago
        They may in extreme circumstances - the courts still will function and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of BS challenges to this restriction - but if authorities step over the line and, for instance, close down a small political rally of 300 while an opponent's rally of 500 is unaffected, then injunctions will happen.
  - ken 7y ago
    According to the Supreme Court, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
    - randyrand 7y ago
      That ruling is for interstate quanrentines. not within a state.
      - ken 7y ago
        Can you explain? The second paragraph of the majority decision quotes the Louisiana law which it upholds: "In case that any parish, town, or city, or any portion thereof, shall become infected with any contagious or infectious disease, to such an extent as to threaten the spread of such disease to the other portions of the state, the state board of health shall issue its proclamation declaring the facts and ordering it in quarantine, and shall order the local boards of health in other parishes, towns, and cities to quarantine against said locality" That sure sounds like it's talking about local quarantines to me.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    The legal system is explicitly set up to encourage this. Laws don't actually spell out in detail every situation to which they might apply - there's no way a legislator can foresee this. Rather, the laws provide general guidelines of legislative intent, and then if two firms disagree on what that means, they take it to court, where the judge and often jury look at the specifics of the case, the text of the laws, how similar past cases were decided, and the general principle that similar situations should be decided in similar ways. Then they come down with a decision, which becomes case law by which future cases are decided. If you want to succeed in Western countries it's worth internalizing this. In the absence of legal advice to the contrary, just assume that what you're doing is legal and assert it confidently, and most people won't challenge you. If they do, it helps to have lots of money to afford lawyers on retainer, so that a.) you're more likely to actually be right when you assert that what you're doing is legal and b.) you can craft very good arguments to persuade the judge and jury if it turns out you're wrong.
- randyrand 7y ago
  They only say that there is power to prevent movement between states or coming into the USA. And they provide no proof that states have the power to quarentine.
mc32 7y ago
Something something emergency powers...
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person rule for several reasons: - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit the number of people in a building. - The rule is agnostic with respect to the purpose of the meeting. E.g., it's not obviously being used to suppress political or cultural movements. - It has a real, plausible purpose for public safety. That being said, I can also see some valid reasons against it: - It sets precedent, which is a powerful factor in the U.S. court system. - The 1000-person rule seems a bit arbitrary. I would think the number needs to be much smaller for the effect to be meaningful. And I'm guessing something more nuanced is what's really needed, for example spacing between persons, air recirculation / flow rates, frequency of surface cleaning vs. # persons present, etc. - It implicitly discriminates what kinds of groups can meet as before. One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. - It also potentially prevents mass protest marches, depending on the wording of the ordinance, and how willing protestors are to ignore the ordinance.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  > One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. This is one scenario where I wouldn't be surprised if there are groups that refuse to uphold the order and file lawsuits over it infringing on their right to practice their religion (and assemble, of course).
  - burlesona 7y ago
    It could happen, but at least in SF it's gone the other way. The Catholic Schools were the first to close, all 90 schools are now shut down.
- ken 7y ago
  Mega-churches broadcast their sermons on TV already. They're better prepared for this than almost any other group.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
scarejunba 7y ago
Wait till you read about what will happen to you if you decide to get TB and not take your meds. You'll be sovereign citizening your way into DOT before you make a new XDR strain for us.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  In America, in most states, you do have the right to refuse treatment. Although mostly seen as a right to die for those who are terminal, cases have be brought up and gone either way for Christian Science followers depending on the situation/court.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf > Some jurisdictions have resolved this tension through compromise: TB patients cannot be forced to undergo treatment, but they may be isolated or detained if they refuse treatment.
jerf 7y ago
The metaphorical "lizard hindbrain" of common law, the basis of US law, has a lot of powers the governments can enact in cases of public health, both de facto and de jure. While they are not allowed to extend it past that point, they have a lot of existing power in this space. And... honestly... not a lot of sensible people are going to complain. Only the very fringes are going to object. The vast "middle" majority, in this case 98%+, is going to agree, conform, and be upset at the people objecting to the quarantine and who break it, not at the government. That counts for a lot too, in practice.
- paulmd 7y ago
  This site leans incredibly libertarian and most people are not going to have a problem with this at all. I've seen people objecting to CDC existing on the basis of federalism and the right of assembly and all kinds of other stuff and that's just so far off the reservation of well-decided legal doctrine that it might as well be freemen on the land. It's frankly a very good idea. I'd even say to lower the number to 50 or maybe 100 at most. Some of the gatherings in South Korea that are believed to have been super-spreading events have been less than that (that church group).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tzs 7y ago
It's constitutional as an exercise of California's power under the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty well settled area of Constitutional law, as the US has had plenty of epidemics of various diseases (cholera, typhus, yellow fever, influenza, and even bubonic plague) in the 19th and early 20th centuries that provided opportunity to litigate these issues.
- jameslevy 7y ago
  It will be interesting to see when this inevitably does affect political mobilization, or even just voting. There's a decent chance that we'll see some of this before the end of the year (and very possibly on Election Day).
otterley 7y ago
(I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) I do not believe this is unconstitutional. It is not meant to keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights. It's speech neutral (time/place/manner restrictions are subject to a much lower level of judicial scrutiny than content-based restrictions). It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces, nor prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks).
- munk-a 7y ago
  > It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks). I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the city - teams remain private entities. This does effect intentional private gatherings in public spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000 people in it then your family reunion would be effected. That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar restrictions.
  - otterley 7y ago
    I thought I read something the other day that said Chase Center was at least partially owned/operated by the City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it up with Moscone Center.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly. Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
dang 7y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've done that quite a bit, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Governments have a lot more power in the immediate moment than we like to confront; it isn’t until weeks or months later that courts (sometimes) get around to stopping them.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... (CDC: Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine) TLDR Legal and constitutional.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
According to the CDC. IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from eroding the trust of those lied to.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  The epidemic will be over by the time you're in front of a judge. The argument is academic.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Preliminary injunctions can happen pretty quickly...
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      No judge is going to sign off on an injunction when an epidemic is raging nationwide, with a large number of confirmed cases on the west coast [1]. I'll eat crow if you find one with that much chutzpa. [1] https://infection2020.com/ https://infection2020.com/
      - munk-a 7y ago
        They may in extreme circumstances - the courts still will function and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of BS challenges to this restriction - but if authorities step over the line and, for instance, close down a small political rally of 300 while an opponent's rally of 500 is unaffected, then injunctions will happen.
- ken 7y ago
  According to the Supreme Court, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
  - randyrand 7y ago
    That ruling is for interstate quanrentines. not within a state.
    - ken 7y ago
      Can you explain? The second paragraph of the majority decision quotes the Louisiana law which it upholds: "In case that any parish, town, or city, or any portion thereof, shall become infected with any contagious or infectious disease, to such an extent as to threaten the spread of such disease to the other portions of the state, the state board of health shall issue its proclamation declaring the facts and ordering it in quarantine, and shall order the local boards of health in other parishes, towns, and cities to quarantine against said locality" That sure sounds like it's talking about local quarantines to me.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  The legal system is explicitly set up to encourage this. Laws don't actually spell out in detail every situation to which they might apply - there's no way a legislator can foresee this. Rather, the laws provide general guidelines of legislative intent, and then if two firms disagree on what that means, they take it to court, where the judge and often jury look at the specifics of the case, the text of the laws, how similar past cases were decided, and the general principle that similar situations should be decided in similar ways. Then they come down with a decision, which becomes case law by which future cases are decided. If you want to succeed in Western countries it's worth internalizing this. In the absence of legal advice to the contrary, just assume that what you're doing is legal and assert it confidently, and most people won't challenge you. If they do, it helps to have lots of money to afford lawyers on retainer, so that a.) you're more likely to actually be right when you assert that what you're doing is legal and b.) you can craft very good arguments to persuade the judge and jury if it turns out you're wrong.
randyrand 7y ago
They only say that there is power to prevent movement between states or coming into the USA. And they provide no proof that states have the power to quarentine.

mc32 7y ago

Something something emergency powers...

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person rule for several reasons: - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit the number of people in a building. - The rule is agnostic with respect to the purpose of the meeting. E.g., it's not obviously being used to suppress political or cultural movements. - It has a real, plausible purpose for public safety. That being said, I can also see some valid reasons against it: - It sets precedent, which is a powerful factor in the U.S. court system. - The 1000-person rule seems a bit arbitrary. I would think the number needs to be much smaller for the effect to be meaningful. And I'm guessing something more nuanced is what's really needed, for example spacing between persons, air recirculation / flow rates, frequency of surface cleaning vs. # persons present, etc. - It implicitly discriminates what kinds of groups can meet as before. One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. - It also potentially prevents mass protest marches, depending on the wording of the ordinance, and how willing protestors are to ignore the ordinance.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
> One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. This is one scenario where I wouldn't be surprised if there are groups that refuse to uphold the order and file lawsuits over it infringing on their right to practice their religion (and assemble, of course).
- burlesona 7y ago
  It could happen, but at least in SF it's gone the other way. The Catholic Schools were the first to close, all 90 schools are now shut down.
ken 7y ago
Mega-churches broadcast their sermons on TV already. They're better prepared for this than almost any other group.
- djsumdog 7y ago

scarejunba 7y ago

Wait till you read about what will happen to you if you decide to get TB and not take your meds. You'll be sovereign citizening your way into DOT before you make a new XDR strain for us.

djsumdog 7y ago
In America, in most states, you do have the right to refuse treatment. Although mostly seen as a right to die for those who are terminal, cases have be brought up and gone either way for Christian Science followers depending on the situation/court.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf > Some jurisdictions have resolved this tension through compromise: TB patients cannot be forced to undergo treatment, but they may be isolated or detained if they refuse treatment.

jerf 7y ago

The metaphorical "lizard hindbrain" of common law, the basis of US law, has a lot of powers the governments can enact in cases of public health, both de facto and de jure. While they are not allowed to extend it past that point, they have a lot of existing power in this space. And... honestly... not a lot of sensible people are going to complain. Only the very fringes are going to object. The vast "middle" majority, in this case 98%+, is going to agree, conform, and be upset at the people objecting to the quarantine and who break it, not at the government. That counts for a lot too, in practice.

paulmd 7y ago
This site leans incredibly libertarian and most people are not going to have a problem with this at all. I've seen people objecting to CDC existing on the basis of federalism and the right of assembly and all kinds of other stuff and that's just so far off the reservation of well-decided legal doctrine that it might as well be freemen on the land. It's frankly a very good idea. I'd even say to lower the number to 50 or maybe 100 at most. Some of the gatherings in South Korea that are believed to have been super-spreading events have been less than that (that church group).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tzs 7y ago

It's constitutional as an exercise of California's power under the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty well settled area of Constitutional law, as the US has had plenty of epidemics of various diseases (cholera, typhus, yellow fever, influenza, and even bubonic plague) in the 19th and early 20th centuries that provided opportunity to litigate these issues.

jameslevy 7y ago
It will be interesting to see when this inevitably does affect political mobilization, or even just voting. There's a decent chance that we'll see some of this before the end of the year (and very possibly on Election Day).

otterley 7y ago

(I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) I do not believe this is unconstitutional. It is not meant to keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights. It's speech neutral (time/place/manner restrictions are subject to a much lower level of judicial scrutiny than content-based restrictions). It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces, nor prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks).

munk-a 7y ago
> It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks). I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the city - teams remain private entities. This does effect intentional private gatherings in public spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000 people in it then your family reunion would be effected. That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar restrictions.
- otterley 7y ago
  I thought I read something the other day that said Chase Center was at least partially owned/operated by the City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it up with Moscone Center.
Symmetry 7y ago
I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly. Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

dang 7y ago

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've done that quite a bit, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html