3 ms·

For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in

For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield. On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses. In circumstances like this, it is not suspect in the least. I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime. Now, this happens sometimes in NY government (quite often, really) but it usually involves corruption; I am not aware of any particular law he has violated in acquitting his duties in this matter. Anger may indeed be quite justified, but when politicians are prosecuted for their policies after the fact, this is usually more effective at turning a place into a banana republic than it is at improving the quality of the policies.

ransom1538 7y ago
Turns out, we do have a law against what he is doing: Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
vkou 7y ago
> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield. I don't understand why this meme keeps getting repeated, when the power to quarantine has been rather conclusively litigated in the courts.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  The power to quarantine individuals and groups of infected people has been well-litigated. But it is a very new thing indeed to tell 7 or 8 million people at a time, around 99% of whom are still expected to be uninfected, that they are now threats, and are under some form of house arrest. This is unprecedented and has never been litigated. New York's quarantine law, in particular, allows you to challenge the quarantine order in court after 3 days. It is then on the state to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that you — specifically you — pose a clear threat to the safety of others, and that your confinement is the least restrictive means to contain this threat.
  - watwut 7y ago
    The expectation is not that 99% are uninfected.
    - fennecfoxen 7y ago
      Do you expect that when the Shelter In Place orders were issued around the Bay Area earlier that there were 70,000 active cases in the Bay Area? That would be a far higher estimate than I've heard and I would love sources which project it in detail.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The power to quarantine individuals and groups of infected people has been well-litigated. So has the power to issue emergency curfews when justified by a compelling state interest, which is what a shelter-in-place order is.
henryfjordan 7y ago
Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines". Almost no right in the constitution is unlimited. Speech and movement can be restricted with good cause, and this virus certainly counts. States right now very much have the legal power to say "no gatherings of any sort, no leaving your house without good cause, etc".
- flyingfences 7y ago
  > Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines". That's certainly the way it's treated nowadays. That doesn't make such treatment right.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state Not particularly, curfew and similar restrictions are common emergency measures, and their is no Constitutional difference for greater scale except that it reduces the possibility of it being covert discrimination. And, even if it was, Cuomo had one of the most pressing needs to do it of any state, and was slower than some others. Now, I'm not arguing he was negligent, but he's not a head-and-shoulders above everyone else standout the way he's been portrayed upthread, either. > On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses Cuomo was slow at that, too. > I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime Untrue. People are criminally prosecuted (and even convicted) without committing crimes all the time. He'd have to be accused of a crime, though.

ransom1538 7y ago

Turns out, we do have a law against what he is doing: Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

vkou 7y ago

> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield. I don't understand why this meme keeps getting repeated, when the power to quarantine has been rather conclusively litigated in the courts.

fennecfoxen 7y ago
The power to quarantine individuals and groups of infected people has been well-litigated. But it is a very new thing indeed to tell 7 or 8 million people at a time, around 99% of whom are still expected to be uninfected, that they are now threats, and are under some form of house arrest. This is unprecedented and has never been litigated. New York's quarantine law, in particular, allows you to challenge the quarantine order in court after 3 days. It is then on the state to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that you — specifically you — pose a clear threat to the safety of others, and that your confinement is the least restrictive means to contain this threat.
- watwut 7y ago
  The expectation is not that 99% are uninfected.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    Do you expect that when the Shelter In Place orders were issued around the Bay Area earlier that there were 70,000 active cases in the Bay Area? That would be a far higher estimate than I've heard and I would love sources which project it in detail.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The power to quarantine individuals and groups of infected people has been well-litigated. So has the power to issue emergency curfews when justified by a compelling state interest, which is what a shelter-in-place order is.

henryfjordan 7y ago

Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines". Almost no right in the constitution is unlimited. Speech and movement can be restricted with good cause, and this virus certainly counts. States right now very much have the legal power to say "no gatherings of any sort, no leaving your house without good cause, etc".

flyingfences 7y ago
> Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines". That's certainly the way it's treated nowadays. That doesn't make such treatment right.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 7y ago

> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state Not particularly, curfew and similar restrictions are common emergency measures, and their is no Constitutional difference for greater scale except that it reduces the possibility of it being covert discrimination. And, even if it was, Cuomo had one of the most pressing needs to do it of any state, and was slower than some others. Now, I'm not arguing he was negligent, but he's not a head-and-shoulders above everyone else standout the way he's been portrayed upthread, either. > On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses Cuomo was slow at that, too. > I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime Untrue. People are criminally prosecuted (and even convicted) without committing crimes all the time. He'd have to be accused of a crime, though.