2 ms·

The 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, sw

• aaomidi 6y ago
  Yes. 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Unfortunately 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.