4 ms·

The only thing stopping states from deficit spending (selling bonds to pay for general obligations) are the states’ own rules. As we have seen, constitutional r

The only thing stopping states from deficit spending (selling bonds to pay for general obligations) are the states’ own rules. As we have seen, constitutional requirements are not an impediment in a pandemic.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
> As we have seen, constitutional requirements are not an impediment in a pandemic Agreed. It’ll be interesting to see the 1A cases that come out of this though. There is only so much tolerance to freedom of religion, right to peaceful assembly, and right to petition the government that people will accept. Of course, if there was even a single issue with freedom of press there would be nonstop coverage from the very same. I’m pro-self-quarantine but I can recognize the issue with ticketing people who went to a drive in church service, or walking alone, or playing outside with their kids. I haven’t see “THE” case that could go to Supreme Court, but I wonder if it’s out there.
- chasd00 7y ago
  i'm both impressed and worried over the level of compliance from the American people. It's good that everyone is working together to "flatten the curve" however it's also worrisome how willing citizens are to do throw their rights out the window. I'm sure many politicians are rubbing their chins right now wondering if the rights of the people even matter anymore.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    You are projecting that citizens are willing to throw their rights out the window. A more neutral perspective would be that people are willing to make sacrifices when they feel it's worth it. Also, people aren't "throwing their rights out the window" -- it's more like people are chilling them in the fridge for a small window of time. To prevent their friends, families, and countrymen from death. (Also, it's not clear that America is all that compliant.)
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      It’s good idea to accept that the risk analysis of someone making 6 figures here is absolutely different than that of someone who is living paycheck to paycheck. This is why it’s been so frustrating to see “YOU’RE TRYING TO MURDER PEOPLE” from one side and “muh freedom” from the other. There is nuance of course. I think it’s super interesting how differently this all looks to different people. But I can’t think even during Spanish Flu that First Amendment rights were so heavily infringed - good reasons or not. Best I could find on the topic was the heavy fines for spitting in public in 1918.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        The 1918 flu pandemic is not a good baseline, except for identifying where we fell short in science, public policy, and action. Remember, 50M+ people died (>500K Americans) at a time when there were maybe 1.5B people around. People weren't quarantined. The death toll was much higher. Not saying those two are directly correlated -- many other factors -- but there's not a good comparison on the "rights" front because of that death toll.
      - nradov 7y ago
        News media was actually heavily censored in 1918 due to the Sedition Act. It was literally "fake news".
jcranmer 7y ago
Which constitutional requirements do you think are being violated? And if you're going to say first amendment, be sure to explain precisely why they wouldn't survive strict scrutiny. (And if you're not aware of the legal meaning of "strict scrutiny," then you are probably ignorant of what the Constitution has actually been held to mean by the authority that has the power to interpret it.)
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Controlling a pandemic is certainly a compelling interest, but as far as I know no government has attempted to show that a general closure of businesses and churches is the least restrictive means that will achieve it. Many acknowledge that there are less restrictive means, and have a medium-term plan to move to those lesser restrictions, but say we shouldn't explore them right now because it's too dangerous.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The authority of the state to impose broad quarantines has a history in our jurisprudence going all the way back to John Marshall. See, for instance, Gibbons v Ogden.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      "Quarantine" historically refers to segregation of people or populations who've been exposed to a disease from the general public. The idea of a general quarantine, where everyone is segregated from everyone else, was as far as I can tell invented out of whole cloth a few months ago.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        Since there are literally laws on the books in many states that explicitly delegate this power, for this precise purpose, "invented out of whole cloth a few months ago" seems an extraordinary claim. Find a credible source? When you do so, remember that the "lockdown" we're experiencing falls far short of a "general quarantine". You can in fact leave your house, and travel between states, free from pretty much any tracking or extra surveillance. Most of the police power being exercised falls under business regulation; where you're feeling the lockdown the most is likely in the fact that you have so few places to go right now. Because it's easy to find sources discussing the legal controversy of general quarantines. But you'll notice they're mostly talking about the due process concerns of doing the equivalent of imprisoning people without trials, not closing the bars.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

> As we have seen, constitutional requirements are not an impediment in a pandemic Agreed. It’ll be interesting to see the 1A cases that come out of this though. There is only so much tolerance to freedom of religion, right to peaceful assembly, and right to petition the government that people will accept. Of course, if there was even a single issue with freedom of press there would be nonstop coverage from the very same. I’m pro-self-quarantine but I can recognize the issue with ticketing people who went to a drive in church service, or walking alone, or playing outside with their kids. I haven’t see “THE” case that could go to Supreme Court, but I wonder if it’s out there.

chasd00 7y ago
i'm both impressed and worried over the level of compliance from the American people. It's good that everyone is working together to "flatten the curve" however it's also worrisome how willing citizens are to do throw their rights out the window. I'm sure many politicians are rubbing their chins right now wondering if the rights of the people even matter anymore.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  You are projecting that citizens are willing to throw their rights out the window. A more neutral perspective would be that people are willing to make sacrifices when they feel it's worth it. Also, people aren't "throwing their rights out the window" -- it's more like people are chilling them in the fridge for a small window of time. To prevent their friends, families, and countrymen from death. (Also, it's not clear that America is all that compliant.)
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    It’s good idea to accept that the risk analysis of someone making 6 figures here is absolutely different than that of someone who is living paycheck to paycheck. This is why it’s been so frustrating to see “YOU’RE TRYING TO MURDER PEOPLE” from one side and “muh freedom” from the other. There is nuance of course. I think it’s super interesting how differently this all looks to different people. But I can’t think even during Spanish Flu that First Amendment rights were so heavily infringed - good reasons or not. Best I could find on the topic was the heavy fines for spitting in public in 1918.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      The 1918 flu pandemic is not a good baseline, except for identifying where we fell short in science, public policy, and action. Remember, 50M+ people died (>500K Americans) at a time when there were maybe 1.5B people around. People weren't quarantined. The death toll was much higher. Not saying those two are directly correlated -- many other factors -- but there's not a good comparison on the "rights" front because of that death toll.
    - nradov 7y ago
      News media was actually heavily censored in 1918 due to the Sedition Act. It was literally "fake news".

jcranmer 7y ago

Which constitutional requirements do you think are being violated? And if you're going to say first amendment, be sure to explain precisely why they wouldn't survive strict scrutiny. (And if you're not aware of the legal meaning of "strict scrutiny," then you are probably ignorant of what the Constitution has actually been held to mean by the authority that has the power to interpret it.)

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Controlling a pandemic is certainly a compelling interest, but as far as I know no government has attempted to show that a general closure of businesses and churches is the least restrictive means that will achieve it. Many acknowledge that there are less restrictive means, and have a medium-term plan to move to those lesser restrictions, but say we shouldn't explore them right now because it's too dangerous.
- tptacek 7y ago
  The authority of the state to impose broad quarantines has a history in our jurisprudence going all the way back to John Marshall. See, for instance, Gibbons v Ogden.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    "Quarantine" historically refers to segregation of people or populations who've been exposed to a disease from the general public. The idea of a general quarantine, where everyone is segregated from everyone else, was as far as I can tell invented out of whole cloth a few months ago.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Since there are literally laws on the books in many states that explicitly delegate this power, for this precise purpose, "invented out of whole cloth a few months ago" seems an extraordinary claim. Find a credible source? When you do so, remember that the "lockdown" we're experiencing falls far short of a "general quarantine". You can in fact leave your house, and travel between states, free from pretty much any tracking or extra surveillance. Most of the police power being exercised falls under business regulation; where you're feeling the lockdown the most is likely in the fact that you have so few places to go right now. Because it's easy to find sources discussing the legal controversy of general quarantines. But you'll notice they're mostly talking about the due process concerns of doing the equivalent of imprisoning people without trials, not closing the bars.