Authority for quarantine?

Posted by tkstone 10 years, 1 month ago to Government
19 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I work as a city manager in a small community and in my job I receive bulletins concerning Ebola related issues. Today I received a bulletin from the Congressional Research Service with policy support for quarantine activities. They claim Constitutional support in one paragraph with no supporting reference and later claim the authority comes from the Commerce clause! Why do we even bother with the rest of the Constitution. The liberals justify everything this way! This is from the official policy think tank for our Congress!


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by gwilhelm56 10 years, 1 month ago
    Commerce Clause is (as WE all know), is the Justification by the Progressive Left to use the Constitution as toilet paper... Pity we couldn't use the same Commerce Clause to make same said Progs ... Disappear!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccwho 10 years, 1 month ago
    My Feeling is that she may or may not be right about her rights.
    My biggest concern and I feel the bigger question is for the rights of others to NOT be infected by her. Her actions show a total lack of consideration and respect for others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 1 month ago
    Hello tkstone,

    A careful reading of The Constitution...

    "Article. 1. Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    ......—And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Here is where one can argue that they have the power to make laws that provide for the general welfare... An unchecked epidemic is definitely a threat to the general welfare. Even if this was deemed illegitimate the States individually would not be barred from enforcing a quarantine within their borders, since they retain all powers not enumerated in the Constitution.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
      That is not what "general welfare" meant in the Constitution and is not a "careful reading". "General welfare" meant that what the government did within its limited powers had to be for the general population, not specific individuals or groups. If it were intended to mean the government could do whatever it wants regarded as the "general welfare" there would have been no point to the rest of the Constitution limiting the powers of government and describing specific functions. It would wipe out the rest of the Constitution and the entire concept of limiting government powers (which is exactly what is happening now). This was discussed by the framers at the time. They regarded "general welfare" misconstrued as open ended powers in the name of doing good as absurd and obviously not the government they constructed, which it obviously is not. Mark Levin has discussed this on his radio show several times and has quoted the framers, so you can probably find it in one or more of his books.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 1 month ago
        Hello eww,
        I am not suggesting it is anything else. I do not agree with the proponents of this argument in their open ended way. I am only suggesting that this is the argument used and where it originates. By "careful reading" I meant finding the proponents argument; nothing more. However it should be noted that this is not the most highly disputed part of the preamble where this appears. It is as noted in Article .1... This is why we have had so many bad decisions and why the Supreme Court has struggled with this. I have read several of Mr. Levin's books, done reviews of them and agree. I have studied the Federalist, the Anti-Federalist, The Constitutional Convention Papers and a multitude of other writings of the founders as well as the philosophies upon which they built. I believe I have unfortunately not made myself clear and you are unfamiliar with all of the things I have written on this site. Otherwise, you would know this would be completely out of context with the bulk of my work to suggest that I find this an open invitation for unlimited abuse. I was unclear. My mistake. That said: if there was ever a reason for congress to create a law that protects the general welfare and uses it as a justification, epidemic would be it. By your own words this would be for the general population, not specific individuals or groups. Of course this clause can not be construed as an unlimited power to do all that has been done in its name.
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 1 month ago
      A much better thought out support than the simple commerce clause excuse used by the policy people. I recognize the need and justification for quarantine. Just hoped that our federal government had better policy experts giving them advise.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 1 month ago
    Quarantine is an emergency measure, one you take to respond to a threat to life from an infectious agent. See Rand, "The Ethics of Emergencies" for the general principle.

    Rand never treated quarantine specifically. But I have the remedy: bring it before a judge. That's what the Governor of the State of Maine did.

    Quarantine is an inherent power, to guard against an infection having a case-fatality rate higher than, say, fifty percent--or whatever threshold we can set. (The case-fatality rate for Ebola is seventy percent.) But, Mr. City Manager, I urge you: seek court orders. If the courts have a problem with so many requests for orders, no doubt they'll do something about it. The same exigent circumstances that impel you to seek these quarantine orders, surely affect them, too.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
      Ayn Rand did address quarantines and supported the principle. Spreading a deadly infectious disease is a physical threat regardless of the claimed intent of a Typhoid Mary.

      "The Ethics of Emergencies" does not endorse or imply that government can do takeover whatever it wants in the name of dealing with anyone's "emergency".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
    It's easy. They are trafficking in Ebola and have obviously crosses state lines. Therefore the Commerce Clause comes into play.

    [/sarcasm]

    I just wish I weren't kidding about how their simpleton minds work.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
      The "glancing goose test" for viruses?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
        Please elaborate. I'm not familiar with that one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
          The use of the commerce clause to rationalize Federal land use prohibitions under the Clean Water Act regulation of "navigable waters": An interstate migrating goose who so much as glances at a private pond on the way through was deemed justification under interstate commerce to control the private property. http://humanevents.com/2006/07/03/clean-... searching the web shows a lot of references to the "glancing goose test". Now we have an interstate "glancing virus test" to establish interstate commerce control.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
            Wow. Thanks for the primer. Had no idea someone had used such convoluted logic to such devastating effect.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 10 years, 1 month ago
              This illustrates why we are in a post-constitutional era. The meaning of enumerated powers explicitly stated in the constitution in accordance with a deliberately limited government on principle has been lost. Adherence to the constitution has been replaced with a game of Pragmatists to find 'clever' ways to rationalize their agenda, 'following the constitution' out of nothing but the momentum of shallow conventions paying lip service to it. That is all that has prevented them, so far, from openly acknowledging that they reject constitutional limits and will ignore it on principle. We see this through the whole range, from Obama's open contempt to the intellectual clowning of Roberts in his apologetics for Obama's health care controls.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo