4 ms·

Try reading the order? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-declaration.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-dec..

Try reading the order? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-declaration.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-dec...

vmception 6y ago
tl;dr the provision's jurisdiction goes far beyond residences that have some tie to federal government assistance, and has not been tried in a Federal court as the criminal penalties for noncompliance (towards landlords) are quite stiff and it would be a PR disaster so ultimately it is a major deterrent
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
"Issued an order" and "has constitutional authority that covers the contents of the order" are two different things. "Has constitutional authority that the courts recognize" is yet a third thing. The existence of the first thing does not imply the existence of the second or third things. The order itself gives no justification for how the CDC has the constitutional authority to order these things.
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  No, but govt orders tend to have a section that addresses why they think they have the authority to issue them.
- skedaddle 6y ago
  Yes, it does. Read the "Findings and Actions" section. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/03/2021-02243/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/03/2021-02...
  - rayiner 6y ago
    The "Authority" section is a sentence and the order doesn't use the word "constitution" even once.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Yeah, exactly. They cite a an act of congress and a federal regulation, which is somewhat better than nothing. But both of those are null to the degree that they exceed the scope authorized for the federal government within the constitution.
      - skedaddle 6y ago
        Every order of the executive branch is null to the degree that it exceeds its constitutional authorization. I don't understand your point. It isn't the CDC's job to prove that Acts of Congress are constitutional -- in fact it is the job of a federal agency to execute those laws, which have much more force than you suggested by calling them "somewhat better than nothing".
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        My point is that federal agencies have at times written rules where it was clear that nobody had bothered to think at all seriously about the constitutional implications. It isn't the CDC's job to prove that acts of Congress are constitutional, but it is their job to stay within the constitution, whether or not an act of Congress says they can go further. (It's also Congress's job to not write legislation that authorizes acts outside the legal authority of the federal government, but that's not the subject at hand here.) What I called "somewhat better than nothing" was the significance of acts of Congress as giving authority for CDC actions. Yeah, they do... and they don't. The constitution is the outer perimeter of the CDC's authority. An act of Congress can assign them some territory within that perimeter, but it cannot extend the perimeter. I'd like the CDC to be keeping an eye on that outer perimeter, not just on the acts of Congress that say they can do something. (And not just the CDC. I'd like every federal agency to do that.) Turning back to the original question: Has there ever been a case that established the constitutionality of a federal agency banning evictions? It would have been nice if the CDC cited it in their order, because most people that I know have never heard of such a case. Or, if there hasn't been one (which I think is the actual situation, but I'm not certain enough to say definitely that it is), then I would like for somebody at the CDC to think more seriously about the question than to just say "yeah, we've got an act of Congress that says we can do stuff to deal with health emergencies". "We can do stuff" does not mean "we can do absolutely anything we decide", because some parts of "absolutely anything" are clearly outside the authority of the federal government. Does the federal government have the constitutional authority (for whatever reason) to order a nationwide ban on evictions? Where in the constitution do they think that comes from? That is what I want to see in an "Authority" section of the order. (And then, yeah, I still want to see the act of Congress that says that the CDC can do it.)

Try reading the order? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-declaration.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-dec...

vmception 6y ago

tl;dr the provision's jurisdiction goes far beyond residences that have some tie to federal government assistance, and has not been tried in a Federal court as the criminal penalties for noncompliance (towards landlords) are quite stiff and it would be a PR disaster so ultimately it is a major deterrent

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

"Issued an order" and "has constitutional authority that covers the contents of the order" are two different things. "Has constitutional authority that the courts recognize" is yet a third thing. The existence of the first thing does not imply the existence of the second or third things. The order itself gives no justification for how the CDC has the constitutional authority to order these things.

iudqnolq 6y ago
No, but govt orders tend to have a section that addresses why they think they have the authority to issue them.
skedaddle 6y ago
Yes, it does. Read the "Findings and Actions" section. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/03/2021-02243/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/03/2021-02...
- rayiner 6y ago
  The "Authority" section is a sentence and the order doesn't use the word "constitution" even once.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Yeah, exactly. They cite a an act of congress and a federal regulation, which is somewhat better than nothing. But both of those are null to the degree that they exceed the scope authorized for the federal government within the constitution.
    - skedaddle 6y ago
      Every order of the executive branch is null to the degree that it exceeds its constitutional authorization. I don't understand your point. It isn't the CDC's job to prove that Acts of Congress are constitutional -- in fact it is the job of a federal agency to execute those laws, which have much more force than you suggested by calling them "somewhat better than nothing".
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        My point is that federal agencies have at times written rules where it was clear that nobody had bothered to think at all seriously about the constitutional implications. It isn't the CDC's job to prove that acts of Congress are constitutional, but it is their job to stay within the constitution, whether or not an act of Congress says they can go further. (It's also Congress's job to not write legislation that authorizes acts outside the legal authority of the federal government, but that's not the subject at hand here.) What I called "somewhat better than nothing" was the significance of acts of Congress as giving authority for CDC actions. Yeah, they do... and they don't. The constitution is the outer perimeter of the CDC's authority. An act of Congress can assign them some territory within that perimeter, but it cannot extend the perimeter. I'd like the CDC to be keeping an eye on that outer perimeter, not just on the acts of Congress that say they can do something. (And not just the CDC. I'd like every federal agency to do that.) Turning back to the original question: Has there ever been a case that established the constitutionality of a federal agency banning evictions? It would have been nice if the CDC cited it in their order, because most people that I know have never heard of such a case. Or, if there hasn't been one (which I think is the actual situation, but I'm not certain enough to say definitely that it is), then I would like for somebody at the CDC to think more seriously about the question than to just say "yeah, we've got an act of Congress that says we can do stuff to deal with health emergencies". "We can do stuff" does not mean "we can do absolutely anything we decide", because some parts of "absolutely anything" are clearly outside the authority of the federal government. Does the federal government have the constitutional authority (for whatever reason) to order a nationwide ban on evictions? Where in the constitution do they think that comes from? That is what I want to see in an "Authority" section of the order. (And then, yeah, I still want to see the act of Congress that says that the CDC can do it.)