4 ms·
How does the CDC have any authority over real estate law? This is way beyond its legal statute and not a good thing regardless of your feelings on the matter. T
by chrisco255 6y ago
How does the CDC have any authority over real estate law? This is way beyond its legal statute and not a good thing regardless of your feelings on the matter. This should be unconstitutional if it's not already.
- nkw 6y agoThat would be 42 U.S. Code § 264. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264 > This should be unconstitutional if it's not already. Sounds good. I suggest contact your elected representatives to express your support for such an amendment.
- ForHackernews 6y agohttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-cdc-authority-to-stop-evictions-during-pandemic/ar-BB18BTug https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-cdc-auth... The legal passage cited is this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2 > § 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control. > Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection. (emphasis mine) I'm sure this will be challenged in court, but the text as written seems extraordinarily broad. The CDC can do anything they "deem reasonably necessary"!
- chrisco255 6y agoYeah that won't hold up in court. Otherwise the CDC is an unlimited force for tyranny within government.
- aaomidi 6y agoNo court is going to stop a reasonable use of power to stop a public health crisis. The precedent of doing that would be too bad.
- abduhl 6y agoUh oh - over expansive authority being given to the executive branch by the legislature? What could possibly go wrong.
- refurb 6y agoThey should try and suspend habeus corpus. That would be interesting to watch.
- bagacrap 6y agothe eviction moratorium is pretty far removed from the list of examples given. Can the CDC also mandate that no one be laid off during a pandemic, or that hospitals provide care for free? The cdc's interpretation of this law leads to some pretty ridiculous implications.
- evgen 6y agoStopping lay-offs? Probably not. Demanding hospitals provide free care that is relevant to preventing or limiting the spread of a dangerous communicable disease? Absolutely. As the saying goes: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." When it comes down to it, in an emergency we can do whatever we collectively think is necessary for survival.
- aaomidi 6y agoCan the CDC also mandate that no one be laid off during a pandemic, or that hospitals provide care for free? Yes.
- pjkundert 6y agoCan the CDC suspend the laws of physics, and demand a free solid gold toilet for every citizen? Yes.
- dcsux 6y agoYou... don't seem to know the meaning of the term "real estate."
- jeffbee 6y agoIt's a bit of a detour from the topic, but in my experience the number of people who understand the term "real estate" even superficially is close to zero.
- chrisco255 6y agoI'm very familiar with landlord-tenant and real estate laws, at least in my home state, and I remain extremely concerned about this extreme interpretation of the CDC's statutory authority.
- anarazel 6y agoThe claim is that it derives from public health emergency powers. Arguing that evicting people increases the infection risk, therefore falling within CDCs powers. But that indeed seems to be stretching things to somewhere around the breaking point. The underlying reg: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19654/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19... The authority seems to be claimed mostly from 42 U.S.C. §264: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap6A-subchapII-partG-sec264.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Thorentis 6y agoIf this is allowed to happen, I think we're seeing the new face of government overreach. Last time it was terrorism, ans that saw a whole wave of government powers used in the name of fighting terror. And back then, very few batted an eye. Now, it's fighting disease (corona) being used to justify these things. And, like last time, suggesting this might be too far gets you shouted down for not caring about other people or not taking corona seriously. I wish history would stop repeating itself but I don't think it ever will stop.
- anarazel 6y agoI think this is pretty over the top.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoWith all due respect, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. We are heading down a very scary path. And here in America everyone is so desperate to “prove Trump wrong” or whatever their motivation is that they’re ignoring giving any thought to: What if the government shouldn’t have this power? What I find interesting about Sweden is that Tegnell (correctly imo) thought lockdown would make things worse, but that wasn’t how he justified not locking down. He said that Sweden, being a free society, did not have the authority to perform a China-style lockdown. The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
- aaomidi 6y agoCDC is the center of disease control. This means making measures like this to control disease. Human lives > property.
- jMyles 6y agoThe dispute isn't about whether human lives or property are more important; agreement is universal on the former. It's whether a government with such broad, sweeping powers (which aren't among those clearly enumerated) is good for human life.
- aaomidi 6y agoYes. This would go through the judicial system who would make a judgment call on it. Think of it like an executive order, are they always legal? No. Do the courts have a say in them? Yes.
- jMyles 6y agoIf you are suggesting that justice and security can arise from executive orders being tested in court on the basis of efficacy alone, rather than being attributable to a specific enumerated power, then I view this as a very naive and privileged view. If the "necessary and proper" clause subsumes the entire limitation on power in Washington DC, it is the most disadvantaged in society who will suffer for it. No matter how good a decision Congress or POTUS might want to make, I prefer that they be strictly restrained. The idea of "the united States of America" as the default political unit (rather than more localized decision-making) is a relic of an age without the kind of communication technology we have today. I am especially cautious at agencies like CDC, which have blundered their way through some important decision-making, being given expanded powers at a time when more local agencies are capable of consuming precisely the same wealth of information.
- aaomidi 6y agoUnfortunately with a split congress nothing is going to be done. Which is why CDC waited to see where the talks are going and realized that they can't wait too long. At some point lives become more important than political process.