3 ms·
"The law" gives public health officials authority to issue those "edicts". Try taking them to court and see how far that gets you. Hint: not very.
by wffurr 5y ago
"The law" gives public health officials authority to issue those "edicts". Try taking them to court and see how far that gets you. Hint: not very.
- fastball 5y agoWell, given how nobody was prosecuted, taking it to court seems unnecessary, which was my point.
- martimarkov 5y agoNot being prosecuted is not the same as not guilty.
- wffurr 5y agoIf that was your point, you did a poor job of making it.
- logicchains 5y agoSome people seem to have done pretty well in court bringing a case against unconstitutional edicts: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986010977/supreme-court-rules-for-worshippers-and-against-california-covid-restrictions https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986010977/supreme-court-rules...
- wffurr 5y agoRestricting religion and regulating a factory are pretty different. The first runs directly afoul of the constitution, while the second is clearly within the purview of regulators and public health officials. I was thinking of Jacobson v Massachusetts in my original comment, which upheld state and local governments' broad authority in public health. Here's a balanced view of the powers affirmed in Jacobson and how that has changed over time to better protect individual liberty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ Note however that applies to individuals, not factories or places of business which are subject to much more regulation.
- nl 5y agoIronically, I believe this was overturning a law made by elected officials (on constitutional grounds)