6 ms·
The government has likely overstepped its legal authority here. It is likely a violation of Constitutional rights for the government to declare that you may not
by fennecfoxen 7y ago
The government has likely overstepped its legal authority here. It is likely a violation of Constitutional rights for the government to declare that you may not visit other people in person, and it takes a damn high bar to clear the necessary scrutiny to render it legal — high enough that courts have declared some Ebola quarantines in the US to be a violation of civil liberties (see: Kaci Hickox).
I am curious to see how long this lasts, and whether there will be lawsuits to that effect.
(Also. I am being modded down for this for no apparent good reason. This is not a violation of my civil liberties, though there may be ways to make HN a better place that are more consistent with site guidelines.)
- Der_Einzige 7y agoIt literally doesn't matter what the courts say. "The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact". Lincoln got away with throwing out Habeas corpus during the Civil War. California will get away with this on the grounds of an unprecedented national emergency.
- tengbretson 7y ago> California will get away with this on the grounds of an unprecedented national emergency. Can we at least wait til the US body count reaches 3 digits before saying stuff like this?
- jeromegv 7y agoYou are an awful person, please look at what is happening in Europe, we are WAY past the moment to act.
- Retric 7y agoWhat advantage does waiting provide? It’s not like the disease is less deadly because 100 million people have it vs 100 thousand. Theoretically the most efficient approach might be to quarantine only the sick or elderly, but that’s unlikely to work well. Doing absolutely nothing would cost millions of lives. So, I really don’t see any good options only some hard choices ahead. PS: The only state without known infections is not testing people. Exponential growth is a bitch at this point.
- Analemma_ 7y agoNo, that's what "exponential growth" means. By the time the body count is in three digits, you're way, way too late. Frankly this should've happened at least a week ago as it is.
- anamexis 7y agoNo, because the current US body count isn't relevant?
- chickenpotpie 7y agoIf you feel like we’re not overreacting, we’re underreacting.
- hinzed1127 7y agoGiven what we've already seen worldwide, it's irresponsible to say that. Especially since this has proven to be statistically much less fatal to younger ages, youthful hubris is dangerous. It might not kill you, but transmission is just as dangerous to older populations.
- nostromo 7y agoIs it even right to say "older populations?" I don't have a better word, but maybe we should say, "very old" or enumerate the ages specifically. Median COVID-19 death age in Italy is 81. Average life span for an Italian male is 80. Chance of dying every year for an 85 year old American male is 10% for any and all causes. Because... well our bodies get old and frail at that age. And even then, the vast majority of them survive COVID-19.
- cma 7y agoThe death rate for the elderly from the virus (relative to the less elderly) is amplified by triage.
- rconti 7y agoCan we not infer from other nations, or is the US exceptional, precisely because of the kinds of people who want to bury their heads in the sand and not take action to make us exceptional, until it's too late?
- lm28469 7y agoThat's what they did in Italy and Spain, wait "to see if it's really bad" and then get hit full force with no preparation. I'm very impressed that some countries think they're above others.
- jabroni_salad 7y agoOnly problem is that exponential growth factor. The line between "nothing happened so why did we do all this" and "everything happened, why didnt you prevent it?" is thin.
- nimblegorilla 7y ago> Can we at least wait til the US body count reaches 3 digits before saying stuff like this? Looks like your comment was posted around 3 pm Pacific on Monday. https://www.worldometers.info/ https://www.worldometers.info/ says we are at 85 deaths. Unfortunately we'll probably be at triple digits within 24 hours.
- uoaei 7y agoThis is the kind of weird freedom-at-all-costs libertarian fetishism that the rest of the world makes fun of Americans for.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoExcuse me. This is a rather dispassionate note that the government has likely done something it is not authorized to do, and that its orders are at risk of being overturned. It does not assign value to the order, nor declare it worthless. It does not decry the violation of civil liberties, nor does it declare the violation meaningless. If merely raising the issue in such a note is sufficient to count as "freedom at all costs libertarian fetishism" these days, then by all means, sign me up for freedom at all costs libertarian fetishism. In the meantime, I am confident that our government is strong enough to withstand mild observations of this nature.
- jabroni_salad 7y agoI know we're all willing to die for each others freedoms, but seniors eating it to respiratory illness and other injureds dying because the ICUs were full doesn't really have the glory factor.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoWhat in God's good name are you talking about, sir? I think you are replying to the wrong part of the thread. The post you want was written by someone with the username `strawman` who was posting patriotic poems about dying for freedom. This thread is entirely unrelated and much, much more boring.
- uoaei 7y ago> If merely raising the issue in such a note is sufficient to count as "freedom at all costs libertarian fetishism" these days, then by all means, sign me up for freedom at all costs libertarian fetishism. The fetishism I refer to is one that is distinctly anti-social, since the premise is entirely "others are telling me I shouldn't do this thing, and obviously I know what's best for me, so I will do it to exercise my freedom". You are falling into the same trap.
- whateveracct 7y agoUnsure why this is downvoted - the government restricting citizens' right en masse isn't something that happens often and definitely runs up against our Constitutional Rights. Even if in this case, it is for the greater good.
- earthtourist 7y agoEven if it is legally questionable (not sure it is, I'm not a lawyer) what jackass would bother suing over it? This is a completely reasonable order given the emergency situation. No reasonable person should object to it. (I did not downvote you)
- KozmoNau7 7y agoHistory shows that whenever you ask "what kind of jackass would do this?", a number of such jackasses tend to present themselves. Don't underestimate contrarianism and people's willingness to fight tooth and nail for what they believe in, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you.
- enitihas 7y agoNot sure about the legal validity here, but you can be sure somebody would find time and energy to take this to court. I don't think however, that any court would rule to swifty declare this illegal and then be deemed somewhat responsible for the consequences.
- hfern 7y agoSomeone who is prosecuted for violating this will fight it, as they will have the most firm standing.
- jahlove 7y agoThis sounds like exactly the kind of thing ACLU would fight. And their twitter suggests they will: https://twitter.com/ACLU_NorCal/status/1236722627000975361 https://twitter.com/ACLU_NorCal/status/1236722627000975361
- notJim 7y agoThat is related to people coming off cruise ships being quarantined, where they are actually confined. This order is different, because you are still allowed to leave your house for essentials, exercise, etc. Not saying whether it's legal/illegal/good/bad/whatever. Just noting that it's a different scenario.
- 7y ago
- alfalfasprout 7y agoKeep in mind that, if it comes to it, California can declare martial law to maintain order. This is certainly an emergency of enough severity to warrant exceptional measures like this.
- anewguy9000 7y agowhy?
- JshWright 7y agoItaly
- csomar 7y ago> Keep in mind that, if it comes to it, California can declare martial law to maintain order. Isn't that the right thing to do? You can't have martial law forever. On the other hand, this set a precedent for government to reduce liberties when they see fit. I'd much rather see a martial law.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hirundo 7y agoRead this: https://reason.com/2020/03/16/can-the-government-just-close-my-favorite-bar/ https://reason.com/2020/03/16/can-the-government-just-close-... "American constitutional jurisprudence has long recognized a vast authority on the part of the states to regulate private social and economic activity in the name of the public welfare. Dramatic measures to address the spread of disease has long been a part of those police powers..." That's coming from a libertarian writer in a libertarian magazine that both likely wish the truth were otherwise.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoIf you're going to drop links to Reason at me, you should also take a look at https://reason.com/2020/03/11/would-italian-style-lockdowns-to-curtail-the-spread-of-coronavirus-pass-legal-muster-in-the-u-s/ https://reason.com/2020/03/11/would-italian-style-lockdowns-... which is less recently published but addresses the question of a "China-like lockdown" more directly, rather than simply looking at questions of "can the government close my favorite bar?" It almost certainly can close the bar, but personal liberties — the freedom to not be under some sort of house arrest — tend to get a lot more scrutiny than commercial activity, for good or for ill. Where specific quarantine powers exist, the language authorizing these quarantines often hinges on whether the persons quarantine are actually a substantial risk to public health; here, we are talking about the freedom of movement of ~7000000 people, due to the (known) infections of approximately 200. Just by these numbers, this is an exercise of quarantine power that is without precedent.
- TomMckenny 7y agoThe government can compel you to take up arms and risk death on a battle field. I think you'll find the constitution is entirely up to the whims of the courts which makes it far less absolute than one imagines.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoNotwithstanding the presidency of Andrew Jackson, and more recently of Donald Trump, the United States remain a nation of laws, and not of raw power. Because of this, it is utterly uninteresting to observe the peak of government power, like compelling the draft. The draft is specifically legally authorized in the Constitution, in which the Government is lawfully granted the power to raise and support Armies. It can do so while obeying the law. This is not "the whims of the courts," and the courts are barely involved, because the law is so very clear. Quarantine powers are also subject to the power of law, including both general police powers and Constitutionally protected rights. When these conflict, there are a variety of legal tests to determine which wins, and there is legal precedent for interpreting the laws. When the courts interpret this conflict, it will almost certainly not be on a whim.
- TomMckenny 7y agoTrue, the draft is not an ideal example. None the less, the court is hardly infallible: for example, it is odd that congress can not constitutionally require medical insurance but can institute taxes and even prohibit the consumption of anything deemed to be an intoxicant. Or for more specific examples, given, Gore v Bush, when exactly does the court have standing to intervene in a presidential election? Given DC v. Heller in 2008, what does the word "militia" mean now? Why, to everyone's surprise, did maritime law suddenly limit punitive damages with Exxon vs Baker (2008)? Why did the court narrowly reverse 200 years of convention and the near universal understating of speech with Citizens United?
- fennecfoxen 7y agoPlease. Citizen's United was not a reversal of the understanding of speech. Efforts to convince you of that were propaganda. The Courts detailed the corporate personhood doctrine in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, discussing how corporations have rights because their owners have rights and the corporation is a way for these owners to get together and exercise these rights as a group. These rights include freedom of speech and of the press. Moreover, allow me to remind you that Citizens United is actually a nonprofit group+ and the thing this case was actually about was making an anti-Hilary movie, and being barred from distributing it. Anyone who has glanced at the Bill of Rights, and the history of this nation and its jurisprudence in the area of free speech, could have seen this result coming. (Somehow there are many people not aware of this fact.) (+ not a charity, contributions aren't tax deductible; just a standard 504 not-for-profit.) This may or may not be good policy. It's eminently open to debate. But hewing to precedent like this is supposed to be your evidence of the Court acting on a whim?!?
- nostromo 7y agoI agree, this is an over-reaction, but good luck saying that on HN without inciting an angry mob. People are at peak panic mode right now, and it shows. I just want to remind everyone that H1N1 in 2009 killed between 150-600k people worldwide. Between 10 and 20% of the world population caught it at some point. The fatality rate was greater than Covid-19. And yet, we got through it without panicking. People don't even give it a second thought today, and it was just 10 years ago.
- fock 7y agoCFR of around 0.6‰. Spot the difference.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nostromo 7y agoH1N1: 0.4% CFR in the US COVID-19: 0.6% CFR in South Korea (likely similar in other locations when we stop undercounting infections) These aren't so dramatically different, are they? But they are: H1N1 had a median death in the US of 37 years old, rather than 80+. https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/1.Briand_epi_7th_July_2009_(rev_6July_09).pdf https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/1.Briand_epi_7th_July_...
- chinathrow 7y agoYou picked SK and left Italy on the left.
- nostromo 7y agoBecause Italy has no idea how many cases they have. The best data sets so far are South Korea and the Princess Cruise ship, because they did widespread testing. Both show a CFR of about 0.6%.
- ncallaway 7y ago
- vlunkr 7y agoYeah what a read. The first few paragraphs I thought, hey, good for you SF. Then it became increasingly dystopian as it went on. I certainly agree with all the "advice" they're giving, but it's quite a shocking thing to read as an American. If they were simply advising people to stay inside rather than enforcing it would be fine, and personally I believe that people would listen. I could be wrong though.
- manigandham 7y agoYou're right, it would require martial law to express this kind of authority. However most people won't be opposing this and the main battle is against uncertainty and lack of information. Government power is relatively fragile anyway, and in times like these, this kind of notice can settle fears and give people some direction. They'll follow it given the alternative of chaos, and that's all the city needs.
- jeremyjh 7y agoI doubt they are actually going to lock anyone up for violating this order. If they did, probably that person would have standing for a lawsuit. Everyone else is going to go along because it makes good sense to do this.
- geofft 7y ago> It is likely a violation of Constitutional rights for the government to declare that you may not visit other people in person Which particular constitutional right do you think this violates, precisely?
- LgWoodenBadger 7y agoUhh, Freedom of Assembly.