Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Zaktar]

Provinces, the size of US counties, were locked down by both local and national foces. Meaning local and state police could lock down US counties.

Countries, the size of US states, were locked down by national forces. Meaning state police could lock down US states.

US federal police would certainly help with the lockdown, but it shouldn't be required to start doing it.

"Shouldn't" != "isn't." The kind of response you're talking about happens at a federal level in this country. I'm guessing you, like the other people arguing, don't live here. It's possible that part of what we learn from this disaster involves creating more contingencies like these at state and local levels.

[Draco-Onis]

State governors have authority to mobilise the national guard and whether the SC would stike down an attempt to temporarily lock state borders is very questionable when done during a moment of crisis.

The federal government has superseding powers over the national guard freedom of movement is a constitutional right.

[Gaidax]

You want them to violate the constitution? good luck with that buddy even if they verify they cannot detain them forcefully.

You already have states under lockdown. You think governors don't have the power to mandate 14 days quarantine for those arriving to the state, just like they can do and already for those who are already in the state?

They very much do have this power and exercise it right now in CA, NY and Washington.

Yet here you are, telling me they can't do it, when they very obviously can do it.

[Draco-Onis]

You already have states under lockdown. You think governors don't have the power to mandate 14 days quarantine for those arriving to the state, just like they can do and already for those who are already in the state?

You kidding?

It's the law, are you fucking kidding me? what part of constitutional right do you not understand? and it's not even a mandate it's a recommendation.

[Soulwind]

Yes by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT not local states.

So if, say, Finland (to give a silly example that nobody tries to spin into something else) invades the US, and take the federal government hostage, the states would just shrugh and accept their new overlords? Or would they whip out some ancient 1700s law that allows them to fight back?

[Gaidax]

It's the law, are you fucking kidding me? what part of constitutional right do you not understand?

So tell me please, how NY, CA and Washington governors can do what they do now? Really, pray tell. Huh?

- - - Updated - - -

So if, say, Finland (to give a silly example that nobody tries to spin into something else) invades the US, and take the federal government hostage, the states would just shrugh and accept their new overlords? Or would they whip out some ancient 1700s law that allows them to fight back?

Seems to be the case.

[Draco-Onis]

So if, say, Finland (to give a silly example that nobody tries to spin into something else) invades the US, and take the federal government hostage, the states would just shrugh and accept their new overlords? Or would they whip out some ancient 1700s law that allows them to fight back?

If the federal government were held hostage then rules of succession would apply until you find someone down the line that would default become the president.

[Zaktar]

So if, say, Finland (to give a silly example that nobody tries to spin into something else) invades the US, and take the federal government hostage, the states would just shrugh and accept their new overlords? Or would they whip out some ancient 1700s law that allows them to fight back?

No one is holding the federal government hostage. If in a more apt comparison, if the federal government were eradicated by the disease, what happens next would be unprecedented and chaotic. Different states would react in wildly different ways. No such disaster has occurred, the federal government still exists, so the powers and decisions assigned to it are still being made by it. Just because we don't like the choices it is making doesn't mean we should jump headfirst into lawlessness.

[Draco-Onis]

So tell me please, how NY, CA and Washington governors can do what they do now? Really, pray tell. Huh?

Have you not been paying attention? people are saying fuck it all and doing whatever they want without consequences. Most sane people are listening but not everyone.

[szechuan]

State governors have authority to mobilise the national guard and whether the SC would stike down an attempt to temporarily lock state borders is very questionable when done during a moment of crisis.

Fair enough, but the National Guards are paid with Federal Wages and Funds the majority of Equipment etc... and Trump can easily order them back.

[Soulwind]

If the federal government were held hostage then rules of succession would apply until you find someone down the line that would default become the president.

So what you're saying is that nobody will do anything until Trump and a dozen or so underlings have died of Coronavirus.

No one is holding the federal government hostage. If in a more apt comparison, if the federal government were eradicated by the disease, what happens next would be unprecedented and chaotic. Different states would react in wildly different ways. No such disaster has occurred, the federal government still exists, so the powers and decisions assigned to it are still being made by it. Just because we don't like the choices it is making doesn't mean we should jump headfirst into lawlessness.

There's a difference between full lawlessness and using local police forces to at least try to reduce the spread of a deadly virus.

If five years from now, there's a trial because X governor ordered their state police to turn away people with a fever a couple of weeks before the federal government gave a similar order, I very much doubt people will side with the accusation.

[Draco-Onis]

So what you're saying is that nobody will do anything until Trump and a dozen or so underlings have died of Coronavirus.

They can but Trump and the courts will override them.

[Deja Thoris]

Also never in the History of America have States closed down State to State Borders.


No it isn't, it's a matter of Manpower as well as many other factors in play.

Uh huh butercup, also 1/3 of the worlds population has never been under a stay at home order. Keep beating the "never been done, cant be done" mantra. /slowclap

[Gorsameth]

The federal government has superseding powers over the national guard freedom of movement is a constitutional right.

Really? I missed reading about Trump passing the order to federate the nation guard? No? then they under the command of state governors.
And your constitutional rights are not as inviolable as you like to believe. Your freedom of movement can already be taken away for a wide variety of reasons by state and local governments. A state/national/global health crisis is easily justifiable for temporary suspending of freedom of movement.

[szechuan]

Uh huh butercup, also 1/3 of the worlds population has never been under a stay at home order. Keep beating the "never been done, cant be done" mantra. /slowclap

And There's a difference between Mandating Self Quarantines and Enforcing Borders.

[Zaktar]

So what you're saying is that nobody will do anything until Trump and a dozen or so underlings have died of Coronavirus.

Fighting over turf and making an enemy of the feds by trampling in their garden would be momentously stupid at a time like this. The risk is not worth the reward. Presently. That calculation may change. More likely however is that the Feds will oh so slowly start making better decisions when faced with ugly truths.

[Acidbaron]

So if, say, Finland (to give a silly example that nobody tries to spin into something else) invades the US, and take the federal government hostage, the states would just shrugh and accept their new overlords? Or would they whip out some ancient 1700s law that allows them to fight back?

Power would than move to another branch of government or form, this is also not a hostage situation. The administration of the federal powers and resources does not want to aid. So this comparison is not accurate.

States can only do so much, they lack both the man power and funds to enforce a lock down correctly on their own for long term. One could argue that this crisis is high lighting the short comings in the states that were already present and further stressing them. I believe some States and counties already were massively understaffed and funded when it came to Security and healthcare.

But again, the administration in charge of it all is neglecting their core duties and the person at the head of it is encouraging disobedience and creating division by spreading misinformation and lies because it suits his re-election campaign.

[Inuyaki]

Do you read your responses or do you just write that stuff down and press enter?

I mean, do you see a difference between doing everything you wrote and "Bavaria could just close its borders to Thuringia"?

Uhm...
It is both possible. Only because our federal governments actually react and close borders (like in Italy's case), that does not say anything about state's rights.
Our states can close their border in case of emergency. So Bavaria could actually do that. On their own. And I bet they would, if the federal response was vastly incompetent.

And states in the US even have MORE power than here. So there really is no excuse to just give up when the federal government fails so badly.


Edit
Just an example:
Schleswig-Holstein closed it's borders yesterday to tourists. All tourists. Even German ones. Only it's citizens are allowed back in and obviously essential things like trucks and stuff. And the STATE government decided that on Tuesday. On their own.
(Before you say, it only closes for tourists, tourists are like 90% of the people that go there )

[Draco-Onis]

Really? I missed reading about Trump passing the order to federate the nation guard? No? then they under the command of state governors.
And your constitutional rights are not as inviolable as you like to believe. Your freedom of movement can already be taken away for a wide variety of reasons by state and local governments. A state/national/global health crisis is easily justifiable for temporary suspending of freedom of movement.

It's the law the federal government supersedes the local states for the national guard, why are you giving imaginary powers to state and local government?

[szechuan]

Really? I missed reading about Trump passing the order to federate the nation guard? No? then they under the command of state governors.

Not to Enforce Borders or a Quarantine but to provide Medical Assistance (like creating Temporary hospitals)

A state/national/global health crisis is easily justifiable for temporary suspending of freedom of movement.

Some States already have, just not state to state.