Is there any instance where people should be forced to comply with government orders? (1 Viewer)

One thing we have seen with the COVID crisis is that some Americans will comply with government orders and others will not.  

Are there any instances, and I’m thinking of someone not evacuating for a major hurricane, where the government should have the right to enforce compliance for  reasons of health or safety?

The argument for some is that it is unconstitutional.  Should we therefore amend the constitution that in times of dire consequences, the government can force you to do something?  If a dam is about to break or a fire is headed toward your neighborhood, can you be forced to do something?

Do the laws actually already exist, and there just hasn’t been any desire to enforce them?   As bad as it has been - as we near 100k deaths - if an Ebola level strain broke out, this type of non-compliance could have consequences that could wipe out the human race.

In today’s hyper-partisan environment, there will simply be some people who are so untrusting of the government (Federal or State) that will not comply and could therefore be jeopardizing their own lives.  My fear is that some of those people may be so entrenched in their beliefs or so skeptical of science that it could actually kill them.

Or is America so free that we are ok with letting people die?  Are we a “right to die” country?
 

The ability for the government to compel action by is citizens through threat of force (I.e. Arrest, jail, etc.) already exists in many areas.  A declaration of a public health emergency gives the state (or local) government police powers to enforce quarantine and other public health measures.  And yes, that means they can fine, jail, and forcibly move people.

Similarly, conscription is another area where the government has the ability to compel action of its citizenry.

As long as the orders the government gives are the least restrictive and enforced equally they should  already have the power. 

Problem is, and I'll use PA as an example, the Governor has an essential business waiver that can be applied for but he's approving them in an unclear and inconsistent manner IMO and therefore runs into an equal protection issue.  Same issues in MI where you could go kayaking but not motor boating, inconsistent orders.

Snotbubbles said:

As long as the orders the government gives are the least restrictive and enforced equally they should  already have the power. 

Problem is, and I'll use PA as an example, the Governor has an essential business waiver that can be applied for but he's approving them in an unclear and inconsistent manner IMO and therefore runs into an equal protection issue.  Same issues in MI where you could go kayaking but not motor boating, inconsistent orders.

Click to expand...

Then those orders should be challenged in court of one feels they are illegal under state or federal law.  My hunch is that the state constitution gives the PA governor great latitude during a public health emergency, and selective forced closures of businesses is likely in the statutes giving the executive that power.

If you don't like the decision that the PA governor has made, that's ok. Protest, organize, and push for a change, or try your hand in court.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the government can be inconsistent as long as they don't discriminate based on a protected class (race, sex, religion, etc.).  There are many such laws like these. Example, the state says that no one under 21 may purchase alcohol. Citizens over 18 are considered adults and are afforded all rights associated therein. But the state is discriminating based on age, and is certainly not acting in the "least restrictive" way possible.  Those statutes are legal, as the state may discriminate based on age.

The constitution doesnt need modification.  *sigh*

The method is there already.  Remember seat belts? When states started mandating it people were up in arms.  You cant tell me what to do and so on.   Now its expected and very few if any fight the $65 ticket.  And if they do they lose.  If the law and public opinion are there this is enforceable.  

Many Sheriffs in Michigan have disregarded Whitmer's orders to ticket people $1000.00 for violating her stay at home orders.  One sheriff said it is crazy that you can go into a crowded grocery store yet we are supposed to ticket people who are gathering in small groups, social distancing and being careful.

Whitmer shut down a Michigan barber who was cutting hair while he and his client both wore masks, and took away his barber license.  The Barber said on TV to a reporter that he will continue until if and when he is arrested and said right in the camera.  "I am open for safe business"

is there a public-health equivalent to Martial Law on the books?

The Z Machine said:

Then those orders should be challenged in court of one feels they are illegal under state or federal law.  My hunch is that the state constitution gives the PA governor great latitude during a public health emergency, and selective forced closures of businesses is likely in the statutes giving the executive that power.

If you don't like the decision that the PA governor has made, that's ok. Protest, organize, and push for a change, or try your hand in court.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the government can be inconsistent as long as they don't discriminate based on a protected class (race, sex, religion, etc.).  There are many such laws like these. Example, the state says that no one under 21 may purchase alcohol. Citizens over 18 are considered adults and are afforded all rights associated therein. But the state is discriminating based on age, and is certainly not acting in the "least restrictive" way possible.  Those statutes are legal, as the state may discriminate based on age.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between a law that has to go through the State Legislature and an Executive Order handed down unilaterally by the Governor.  The State of WI just had their Governors order struck down in Courts.  There are also legal challenges happening in multiple States (there's one in PA, don't know where in process it's currently at).  

supermike80 said:

The constitution doesnt need modification.  *sigh*

The method is there already.  Remember seat belts? When states started mandating it people were up in arms.  You cant tell me what to do and so on.   Now its expected and very few if any fight the $65 ticket.  And if they do they lose.  If the law and public opinion are there this is enforceable.  

Click to expand...

Yep agree. It’s all provided for in long recognized state police powers.

Imminent Domain

wikkidpissah said:

is there a public-health equivalent to Martial Law on the books?

Click to expand...

Yes. Every state and the federal government have such statutes. They are called public health police powers.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-isolation-statutes.aspx#1

I bet that such laws exist in PA and the governor has some petty wide latitude on them once a public health emergency is declared.

It's been my anecdotal experience that a large number of people in this country feel like everyone but themselves should be forced to comply with government orders.  

That being said,  I don't doubt that if we ever had to go back to Coastal Blackouts in wartime.....a large portion of the population would suddenly be pissed that the government wasn't letting them use their I-Pads outside and that that was against their basic rights as Americans.  

Thunderlips said:

It's been my anecdotal experience that a large number of people in this country feel like everyone but themselves should be forced to comply with government orders.  

That being said,  I don't doubt that if we ever had to go back to Coastal Blackouts in wartime.....a large portion of the population would suddenly be pissed that the government wasn't letting them use their I-Pads outside and that that was against their basic rights as Americans.  

Click to expand...

Bingo. It's never a problem until it's used against me.