4 ms·

I hate to say it but I agree. RI had the right idea. NYC is a mess right now: we are still not taking this seriously. Trains are crowded, grocery stores are cro

by ng12 7y ago

I hate to say it but I agree. RI had the right idea. NYC is a mess right now: we are still not taking this seriously. Trains are crowded, grocery stores are crowded, the Staten Island ferry is crowded, parks are crowded. In an especially hilarious twist people were crowding the piers yesterday to watch the USNS Comfort come in. We need drastic action.

runawaybottle 7y ago
If we learned one thing with this Pandemic, it’s that basically whatever is at the edge of your mind needs to happen right away. If you think we need to close state borders, then we probably needed to have done it 2 weeks ago, let alone right now. If you think $1200 is not enough, we probably need a bill on the floor right away for another month of stimulus. Whatever even pops into our head is already 2 weeks behind.
- macintux 7y ago
  I don't recall where I saw the reference, so I can't find the link, but some notable pointed out on Twitter a few weeks ago that with exponential growth rates the time for action is when it feels too early.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    That was Paul Graham https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1237801364023017472?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1237801364023017472?...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
elliekelly 7y ago
I don't think it's something that could really be done in the US. We have a constitutional right to move freely between and among the states.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  That's theory colliding with practice. In theory we can't and the Republican originalists in the rural states would agree because it suits their wordview, but in practice we must because nothing else will save the urban coastal states where the Democratic "living constitution" folks live.
- macintux 7y ago
  You'd have to go to the courts to get a transportation ban overthrown, and they'd be reluctant to intervene. By the time you were successful, the crisis would (please, hopefully) be over.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    Getting 5 people on the Supreme Court to say "no let the pandemic run its course, even if it costs 10s or 100s of thousands of deaths" would be difficult.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Can you quote any practicing constitutional lawyers who believe the courts will stop the federal government from restricting cross state movement during the worst pandemic of our lifetime? Everyone I've read has basically said as long as it's necessary and temporary in a time of emergency it will fly.
- jmalicki 7y ago
  According to this take it is well-settled law from previous epidemics that this is constitutional. "In 1824, the Supreme Court in Gibbons v. Ogden alluded to a state’s authority to quarantine under the police powers. In 1902, the Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographic area in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, where both the law and its implementation were upheld as valid exercises of the state’s police power. A shipping company in this case challenged an interpretation of a state statute that conferred upon the state board of health the authority to exclude healthy persons, whether they came from without or within the state, from a geographic area infested with a disease. The shipping company alleged that the statute as interpreted interfered with interstate commerce, and thus was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. The Court rejected this argument, holding that although the statute may have had an effect on commerce, it was not unconstitutional. In a subsequent case, the Court made clear that at least where Congress has not taken action, it is “well settled” that states may impose quarantines to prevent the spread of disease even though quarantines “affect interstate commerce." Pages 8-9 of "Federal and State Quarantine and Isolation Authority" by the Congressional Research Service (2014) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33201.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33201.pdf
mancerayder 7y ago
It really goes to show how deadly entitled individual rights can be. People in the US and in NYC in this case, whether Right-wing or Left-wing, justify going out, crowding and being selfish on the ground of their individual rights. The ACLU is challenging anti-congregation orders and there are still Trump people who refuse to comply on similar grounds. It's not even political - Americans wish to die for their freedoms. In some European countries drones are flying around threatening fines and jail time for being out for non-essential reasons. The individualism versus communitarian debate is in full swing, and Nature chose communitarianism.
a_tractor 7y ago
The people going to the parks and crowding the piers obviously disagree. What gives you the right to tell them what to do? Their body, their choice, no?

by ng12 7y ago

runawaybottle 7y ago

If we learned one thing with this Pandemic, it’s that basically whatever is at the edge of your mind needs to happen right away. If you think we need to close state borders, then we probably needed to have done it 2 weeks ago, let alone right now. If you think $1200 is not enough, we probably need a bill on the floor right away for another month of stimulus. Whatever even pops into our head is already 2 weeks behind.

macintux 7y ago
I don't recall where I saw the reference, so I can't find the link, but some notable pointed out on Twitter a few weeks ago that with exponential growth rates the time for action is when it feels too early.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  That was Paul Graham https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1237801364023017472?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1237801364023017472?...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

elliekelly 7y ago

I don't think it's something that could really be done in the US. We have a constitutional right to move freely between and among the states.

HarryHirsch 7y ago
That's theory colliding with practice. In theory we can't and the Republican originalists in the rural states would agree because it suits their wordview, but in practice we must because nothing else will save the urban coastal states where the Democratic "living constitution" folks live.
macintux 7y ago
You'd have to go to the courts to get a transportation ban overthrown, and they'd be reluctant to intervene. By the time you were successful, the crisis would (please, hopefully) be over.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Getting 5 people on the Supreme Court to say "no let the pandemic run its course, even if it costs 10s or 100s of thousands of deaths" would be difficult.
JamesBarney 7y ago
Can you quote any practicing constitutional lawyers who believe the courts will stop the federal government from restricting cross state movement during the worst pandemic of our lifetime? Everyone I've read has basically said as long as it's necessary and temporary in a time of emergency it will fly.
jmalicki 7y ago
According to this take it is well-settled law from previous epidemics that this is constitutional. "In 1824, the Supreme Court in Gibbons v. Ogden alluded to a state’s authority to quarantine under the police powers. In 1902, the Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographic area in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, where both the law and its implementation were upheld as valid exercises of the state’s police power. A shipping company in this case challenged an interpretation of a state statute that conferred upon the state board of health the authority to exclude healthy persons, whether they came from without or within the state, from a geographic area infested with a disease. The shipping company alleged that the statute as interpreted interfered with interstate commerce, and thus was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. The Court rejected this argument, holding that although the statute may have had an effect on commerce, it was not unconstitutional. In a subsequent case, the Court made clear that at least where Congress has not taken action, it is “well settled” that states may impose quarantines to prevent the spread of disease even though quarantines “affect interstate commerce." Pages 8-9 of "Federal and State Quarantine and Isolation Authority" by the Congressional Research Service (2014) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33201.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33201.pdf

mancerayder 7y ago

It really goes to show how deadly entitled individual rights can be. People in the US and in NYC in this case, whether Right-wing or Left-wing, justify going out, crowding and being selfish on the ground of their individual rights. The ACLU is challenging anti-congregation orders and there are still Trump people who refuse to comply on similar grounds. It's not even political - Americans wish to die for their freedoms. In some European countries drones are flying around threatening fines and jail time for being out for non-essential reasons. The individualism versus communitarian debate is in full swing, and Nature chose communitarianism.

a_tractor 7y ago

The people going to the parks and crowding the piers obviously disagree. What gives you the right to tell them what to do? Their body, their choice, no?