5 ms·

>This is the cost of a profound lack of leadership. From the second the federal government put the "opening up" in the hands of each State it seemed like a mas

>This is the cost of a profound lack of leadership. From the second the federal government put the "opening up" in the hands of each State it seemed like a massive effort from the top down to distance themselves from any bad outcomes and take credit for any good outcomes. Maybe it is better to have the Governors in charge, but once traveling/airports begin picking up again...State boarders and policies become pretty meaningless.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> From the second the federal government put the "opening up" in the hands of each State The federal government never put it there, it was always there because the closing down was always in the hands of each state, because that's where the lockdown orders originated. And that's arguably not the problem, anyway, as those policies are going to need to vary by state (and by smaller areas within states in many cases), anyway, the problem is more the federal withdrawal of support for testing, the failure of support for response needs (and the active redistribution of resources, including direct theft from states who acquired their own) driven by political affinity between the federal executive and state executive rather than public health needs, and the subtle and overt federal pressure (and direct federal mandates, in the case of meat packing) for premature, irresponsible reopening by the states (subtle including things like not providing robust financial supports so as to create bottom-up pressure for reopening.)
- sjg007 6y ago
  Trump could order a nation wide shutdown if he wanted to.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Such an order wouldn't be legally binding outside of federally controlled facilities (and perhaps air and sea ports). For better or worse, US states remain sovereign entities.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      While that's true, a presidential recommendation for something, based on sound reasoning and solid evidence, backed by experts, would be very convincing.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >a presidential recommendation for something, based on sound reasoning and solid evidence, backed by experts, would be very convincing. I'm going to catch hell for this because "politics" but ... we're talking about Trump, here. A man who just recently had to walk back a suggestion that doctors look into injecting cleaning solvents as a possible treatment for COVID-19 as "just sarcasm."
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Indeed. I don't see how he'd make a recommendation based on sound reasoning and solid evidence and backed by experts. His recommendations are polar opposite of this. As for hell, welcome to the club.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        In the post-Gingrich hyper-partisan environment, the best thing for any President to do is not make a recommendation, and to leave it to the experts to present theirs and stay out of their way. If the experts make a non-political recommendation, it has a chance of being accepted by everyone. If the president makes a recommendation, it immediately becomes political and Fox news will either hype the hell out of it (if the president is a Republican) or go to war against it (if the president is a Democrat).
        rbanffy 6y ago
        I don't like the way this story ends. The US needs a plot twist.
        dllthomas 6y ago
        I have a (joking) theory that Trump's initial lack of action was a calculated ploy to make sure the denser, blue states decided COVID was urgent.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Unless he declared martial law, I don't think he has the authority to do so. If you do think he has the authority to do so, what do you think the legal basis is for that authority?
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      Whether it is for the opening or closing of the States the federal government would have the constitutional powers to make those orders. States have the primary authority but essentially at anytime the Federal government could invoke the Commerce Clause. From an American Bar Association (ABA) article from April 2020: >Through the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, the federal government has broad authority to quarantine and impose other health measures to prevent the spread of diseases from foreign countries, as well as between states although that has never been affirmed by the courts. >In 1902, the Supreme Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographical area. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, the justices upheld a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that the state could enact and enforce quarantine laws unless Congress had decided to preempt them. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Between the states. So the President could, for example, close the border between Georgia and South Carolina. But he couldn't, for example, close Georgia internally.
        throwaway_USD 6y ago
        Well that is how the law reads, but its not how it is applied. Put it this way the federal government uses the commerce clause to regulate everything from farmers growing marijuana; farmer feeding their live stock excess crops they grew; restaurants from discriminating against diners on race; etc... There is no shortage of case law over 200 years showing how States rights have all but completely eroded to the Federal Government through the commerce clause...you don't see many farms or restaurants crossing state boarders but federal government can regulate them on the basis of effecting interstate commerce.
  - crispyambulance 6y ago
    > Trump could order a nation wide shutdown if he wanted to. People are getting lost in the weeds about whether or who has authority to do what. I think that's less important. What matters more is cooperation between Federal, State and local. Instead of having those ENDLESS insane ad-libbed monologues at the "daily briefing", a true leader would have been too busy working non-stop with state, key city officials, disease experts, and those who can handle logistics. He could have left the daily briefing to competent spokespeople (I know that's laughable, but imagine any other administration).
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  >The federal government never put it there, Maybe you could debate when the federal government put it there, but they did. I think we would both agree that at all phases of a quarantine the Federal Government has supremacy over the States. Further, Federal government deferring to the State on closures is unrelated to their deferment on opening (legally anyway, the political reasons are likely the same)...In other words just because the federal government deferred to States on closing, doesn't mean they couldn't jump in at any time. In fact with the openings they federal government implemented "Opening Up America Again" which is voluntary, but they could have just the same made it mandatory. Otherwise, You are highlighting many other failures, which I tend to agree with...which are likely part of the desire for the federal government to distance themselves from any fallout of bad outcomes from reopenings. And rest assured when a State opening outcome is good Trump will pat himself on the back and claim they closely followed "Opening Up America Again" guidelines/phases, and States with bad outcomes failed to follow the same.
  - dmwallin 6y ago
    You are just wrong on this. The government of the United States is set up so states have supremacy over the Federal Government in many/most areas of domestic policy. I recommend reading up more on this. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/no-trump-cant-force-states-to-reopen/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/no-trump-cant-force-s...
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      > The government of the United States is set up so states have supremacy over the Federal Government in many/most areas of domestic policy. I don't think you are familiar with the commerce clause [1]. It gives the federal government control to regulate anything that would effect interstate commerce which would obviously include spread of a novel infectious virus. Obviously State issued mandatory lock-downs effect interstate commerce and that where there federal government can begin regulating. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Edit: In 1902, the Supreme Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographical area. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, the justices upheld a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that the state could enact and enforce quarantine laws unless Congress had decided to preempt them.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> From the second the federal government put the "opening up" in the hands of each State The federal government never put it there, it was always there because the closing down was always in the hands of each state, because that's where the lockdown orders originated. And that's arguably not the problem, anyway, as those policies are going to need to vary by state (and by smaller areas within states in many cases), anyway, the problem is more the federal withdrawal of support for testing, the failure of support for response needs (and the active redistribution of resources, including direct theft from states who acquired their own) driven by political affinity between the federal executive and state executive rather than public health needs, and the subtle and overt federal pressure (and direct federal mandates, in the case of meat packing) for premature, irresponsible reopening by the states (subtle including things like not providing robust financial supports so as to create bottom-up pressure for reopening.)

sjg007 6y ago
Trump could order a nation wide shutdown if he wanted to.
- nradov 6y ago
  Such an order wouldn't be legally binding outside of federally controlled facilities (and perhaps air and sea ports). For better or worse, US states remain sovereign entities.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    While that's true, a presidential recommendation for something, based on sound reasoning and solid evidence, backed by experts, would be very convincing.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >a presidential recommendation for something, based on sound reasoning and solid evidence, backed by experts, would be very convincing. I'm going to catch hell for this because "politics" but ... we're talking about Trump, here. A man who just recently had to walk back a suggestion that doctors look into injecting cleaning solvents as a possible treatment for COVID-19 as "just sarcasm."
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        Indeed. I don't see how he'd make a recommendation based on sound reasoning and solid evidence and backed by experts. His recommendations are polar opposite of this. As for hell, welcome to the club.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      In the post-Gingrich hyper-partisan environment, the best thing for any President to do is not make a recommendation, and to leave it to the experts to present theirs and stay out of their way. If the experts make a non-political recommendation, it has a chance of being accepted by everyone. If the president makes a recommendation, it immediately becomes political and Fox news will either hype the hell out of it (if the president is a Republican) or go to war against it (if the president is a Democrat).
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        I don't like the way this story ends. The US needs a plot twist.
      - dllthomas 6y ago
        I have a (joking) theory that Trump's initial lack of action was a calculated ploy to make sure the denser, blue states decided COVID was urgent.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Unless he declared martial law, I don't think he has the authority to do so. If you do think he has the authority to do so, what do you think the legal basis is for that authority?
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    Whether it is for the opening or closing of the States the federal government would have the constitutional powers to make those orders. States have the primary authority but essentially at anytime the Federal government could invoke the Commerce Clause. From an American Bar Association (ABA) article from April 2020: >Through the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, the federal government has broad authority to quarantine and impose other health measures to prevent the spread of diseases from foreign countries, as well as between states although that has never been affirmed by the courts. >In 1902, the Supreme Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographical area. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, the justices upheld a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that the state could enact and enforce quarantine laws unless Congress had decided to preempt them. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Between the states. So the President could, for example, close the border between Georgia and South Carolina. But he couldn't, for example, close Georgia internally.
      - throwaway_USD 6y ago
        Well that is how the law reads, but its not how it is applied. Put it this way the federal government uses the commerce clause to regulate everything from farmers growing marijuana; farmer feeding their live stock excess crops they grew; restaurants from discriminating against diners on race; etc... There is no shortage of case law over 200 years showing how States rights have all but completely eroded to the Federal Government through the commerce clause...you don't see many farms or restaurants crossing state boarders but federal government can regulate them on the basis of effecting interstate commerce.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  > Trump could order a nation wide shutdown if he wanted to. People are getting lost in the weeds about whether or who has authority to do what. I think that's less important. What matters more is cooperation between Federal, State and local. Instead of having those ENDLESS insane ad-libbed monologues at the "daily briefing", a true leader would have been too busy working non-stop with state, key city officials, disease experts, and those who can handle logistics. He could have left the daily briefing to competent spokespeople (I know that's laughable, but imagine any other administration).
throwaway_USD 6y ago
>The federal government never put it there, Maybe you could debate when the federal government put it there, but they did. I think we would both agree that at all phases of a quarantine the Federal Government has supremacy over the States. Further, Federal government deferring to the State on closures is unrelated to their deferment on opening (legally anyway, the political reasons are likely the same)...In other words just because the federal government deferred to States on closing, doesn't mean they couldn't jump in at any time. In fact with the openings they federal government implemented "Opening Up America Again" which is voluntary, but they could have just the same made it mandatory. Otherwise, You are highlighting many other failures, which I tend to agree with...which are likely part of the desire for the federal government to distance themselves from any fallout of bad outcomes from reopenings. And rest assured when a State opening outcome is good Trump will pat himself on the back and claim they closely followed "Opening Up America Again" guidelines/phases, and States with bad outcomes failed to follow the same.
- dmwallin 6y ago
  You are just wrong on this. The government of the United States is set up so states have supremacy over the Federal Government in many/most areas of domestic policy. I recommend reading up more on this. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/no-trump-cant-force-states-to-reopen/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/no-trump-cant-force-s...
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    > The government of the United States is set up so states have supremacy over the Federal Government in many/most areas of domestic policy. I don't think you are familiar with the commerce clause [1]. It gives the federal government control to regulate anything that would effect interstate commerce which would obviously include spread of a novel infectious virus. Obviously State issued mandatory lock-downs effect interstate commerce and that where there federal government can begin regulating. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Edit: In 1902, the Supreme Court directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographical area. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, the justices upheld a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that the state could enact and enforce quarantine laws unless Congress had decided to preempt them.