Two separate issues constitutionally. Shutting down a business and ordering people to stay home, two different constitutional animals.
1 Like
Pro tip: “The court” interprets the Constitution and makes rulings based on that expressly stated power. How do we know? It says that in the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.
I agree. But the OP said “What allows the government to make all these BUSINESS close”
Any limitations on that whatsoever? Oh there is?
Nobody is ordered to stay home. I can still go to the store or other essential business whenever I want
Keep that case in mind in regard to something similar, Trump shutting down immigration. In addition, 1902 predates the bill of rights incorporation to the states.
2 Likes
You continue to extrapolate.
Yes, with due process.
There is no wording in the Constitution that delegates that specific authority.
Is it legal? That’s the question. And the answer is “Yes”, not because of the Constitution, because of case law. Because of the judiciary, a lot of laws are “legal”, not necessarily Constitutional.
Then there is the 10th Amendment. Before incorporation, it is an open and shut case. With incorporation and the usurpation of state authority by the central government, not so much.
If you are going to argue the 10th in this case, I am going to argue Montana rifles.
No cherry picking.
I can’t see any difference between a partial stay at home order and a full one constitutionally speaking.
So you’re saying that authority lies with the states?
What does it say?
Easy. You aren’t being forced to stay at home
Does it?
It does
No? Are people being punished in some places for not staying at home?
2 Likes
Sure. Keep in mind Trump is the federal government, not a state.
Then Montana rifles.
Nope. They’re being punished for being in places that are closed down
I don’t think that’s true.
Well it is.
1 Like
