COVID-19 and the Law

There have been varying responses to COVID-19 carried out across local, state, and federal governments in the US. But what powers does the government have at various levels in a pandemic and how does the law work when an enemy like COVID-19 “does not respect jurisdictional boundaries?” Law expert and Hopkins professor Dr. Lainie Rutkow talks to Dr. Josh Sharfstein about a range of legal issues, including what happens if states start suing each other.

[boedude]

for what it contained it was a good interview. the problem is that it did not contain the most important questions and issues. in reaction to the statement, which is accurate in how it was presented, there is a theory that the federal government can limit interstate travel to prevent an epidemic. that is a theory popular in government circles where the quest for power is omnipresent. the supreme court decided long ago that it wanted state and local governments to have extra constitutional power so by fiat gave it to them. but that is a separate discussion for another day.

to my original point, the most important questions that should have been asked by every journalist and citizen alike when the states started invoking state of emergency powers is was the criteria met for such a declaration, to which cities and counties it would apply, and will they relinquish those powers when the criteria is no longer met. i would grant the original 2-4 weeks in cities like los angeles and new york had tremendous caseloads in the beginning and were duped by the 'scientists' proclaiming there would be millions of deaths did meet the requirements for such a declaration. however, after those initial 4 weeks (less in other areas) it was evident that the cities and counties were able to handle the effects of covid19. nowhere was there an actual insufficiency of beds or workers to administer over the system. add to that that the federal government offered and gave aid without being asked but such was not needed and was only used gratuitously to show need.
at the point when it was shown that outside help was not needed for cities and counties the emergency powers are no longer valid or legal. all regulations, edicts, and control enacted through those powers are also invalid and illegal.

supposing that only los angeles is still having problems with the number of inflicted. los angeles could still be under a state of emergency and subject to those enhanced powers, but the remaining 57 counties would not be under them. the continued shutdown to any degree of the entire state of california is not within the governor's purview. the original plan of 'flattening the curve' was quickly proven useless and counterproductive. its continued use is criminal. to this whole situation even a superficial glance should bring to mind the famous adage 'absolute power corrupts absolutely." we have and are witnessing what our state and local executives have in mind as what should be their permanent scope of power, which is virtually total and irrepressible. we have so easily given up our rights and freedoms to those that would be kings without even asking if we should, or if 'the cure is worse than the disease. in this case no we shouldn't have, and yes we are worse off than without our rulers

[diontaedaughtry]

Thank you this was very helpful and informative 👍👍

[bethlast]

Thank you for a very helpful and informative series. You are providing a very valuable public service!