3 ms·

Yes, it does. Read the "Findings and Actions" section. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/03/2021-02243/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-

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.)
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- skedaddle 6y ago
  It's not like the order's authority has to be constructed from constitutional primitives. So what? There is plenty in the order explaining it on the grounds of mitigating the spread of a deadly contagious disease within the states. The Health Department has a mandate from Congress to do exactly such things as that, and the CDC cites specific laws which (according to it) permit the order. It seems like you should be arguing that that law is unconstitutional, or unconstitutionally applied, or that the whole Health Department shouldn't exist or something... But instead you're saying that the order doesn't even claim to be authorized by law, which is false.

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.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
skedaddle 6y ago
It's not like the order's authority has to be constructed from constitutional primitives. So what? There is plenty in the order explaining it on the grounds of mitigating the spread of a deadly contagious disease within the states. The Health Department has a mandate from Congress to do exactly such things as that, and the CDC cites specific laws which (according to it) permit the order. It seems like you should be arguing that that law is unconstitutional, or unconstitutionally applied, or that the whole Health Department shouldn't exist or something... But instead you're saying that the order doesn't even claim to be authorized by law, which is false.