Has a Thread discussing the Constitutionality of Shelter in Place been discussed?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
25,768
3,153
113
#1
JUST WONDERING.....

In my opinion, there are at least a couple of Amendments that would argue against such an Order being Constitutional........... I am not aware of any language that overrides these Amendments, but there must be, otherwise.............

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly, when Churches are Ordered to stop having services should be an infringement, right? The right to peaceably assemble seems to also argue against such an Order.

5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This statement would seem to argue against such an Order would it not?

If anyone is aware of Language in the Constitution that allows the Government to usurp these Rights, please post it. I honestly do not know where it is in the Constitution. Am looking...........

thanks
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
25,768
3,153
113
#2
Ok, well, I did find the Laws/Powers, but I still am concerned about all of it

Federal Law
The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

The authority for carrying out these functions on a daily basis has been delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


State, Local, and Tribal Law
States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine.

These laws can vary from state to state and can be specific or broad. In some states, local health authorities implement state law. In most states, breaking a quarantine order is a criminal misdemeanor.

Tribes also have police power authority to take actions that promote the health, safety, and welfare of their own tribal members. Tribal health authorities may enforce their own isolation and quarantine laws within tribal lands, if such laws exist.


(here)

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
4,367
1,544
113
#3
Ok, well, I did find the Laws/Powers, but I still am concerned about all of it

Federal Law
The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

The authority for carrying out these functions on a daily basis has been delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


State, Local, and Tribal Law
States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine.

These laws can vary from state to state and can be specific or broad. In some states, local health authorities implement state law. In most states, breaking a quarantine order is a criminal misdemeanor.

Tribes also have police power authority to take actions that promote the health, safety, and welfare of their own tribal members. Tribal health authorities may enforce their own isolation and quarantine laws within tribal lands, if such laws exist.


(here)

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC
You answered your own question lol. The trick is that the government has to give good evidence and reasoning for such a call. But also the states have power on how strict they enforce such a call. Plus they must constantly update the situation because the Gov must have continually a good reason to keep such a call in place. If they dont, then states can begin to push back.
 

laughingheart

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2016
1,461
1,348
113
#4
What about this? The greatest imperative in our lives is to be in relationship with God. We are to be love to the world. We are to be his representatives. How are we doing this if we jump up and down and demand our rights to ignore the needs and safety of others? The world already thinks we are self-entitled, condescending people. We need to act in love for others. We need to self distance. We need to prevent others from getting ill. We are most contagious before symptoms occur. We need to not be self-centered. We need to care about the vulnerable. We do not have the right to hurt them. It doesn't matter if we have the right to endanger others. We need to stop thinking only about ourselves. Do not tell the world that Jesus loves them and that we love Jesus, and then be uncaring. That is not OK. That is not behaviour from God. We need to stop our selfishness and repent. Model and caring and selfless attitude and then share your faith, otherwise our words are meaningless. Less of us and more of God. We have a chance during this pandemic to make a difference and be seen and different. It is up to us to lift up God or to confirm what the world thinks of us. It is up to us to do better.
 

TheIndianGirl

Active member
Nov 22, 2019
284
226
43
#5
Shelter in place is for everyone's safety.
Churches can still gather and have services and Bible studies, but online. Only venue has changed.
 

Mii

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2019
1,097
761
113
#6
My issue is curfews. It is MUCH safer to go out at midnight or overnight (at 24hr places) for groceries as well as really anything if there was a risk in the area. Walmarts in the area I am in close by 11pm now (which is earlier than Kroger did). That was before the Shelter-in-place. I have no idea if they are even open past 6pm now except the gas station is.

3am shop with gloves and a mask (if coughing/sneezing) seeing no one and using self check-out? Where is the risk in that?


Instead funneling everyone down to be in their homes by 6pm leads to places being packed...it makes little sense.
 

Mii

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2019
1,097
761
113
#7
Oh and to be fair...when there's 10 packs of noodles and 5 jars of peanut butter and 3 bags of frozen vegetables I don't "have" to go to the grocery store, but uh...I definitely don't want to eat that for 10 days straight and going to the store for the purpose of variety? Certainly not necessary, but I am curious how many are taking things "that" seriously.

I don't have this issue presently, but you know how it goes. You are tired of everything in your pantry and you just want a pizza. It's food it's necessary!!! Uh, but you have food, you just don't want to eat it. Extremely hard to curtail or stick to.

I'm just doing my best to keep it within somewhat reasonable boundaries and limiting store runs substantially. Unfortunately that requires everyone else in your household to do the same.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,256
217
63
#8
I was wondering the same thing if it's constitutionally valid
However I've already heard a few stories of people being infected at church gatherings so just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
14,686
2,555
113
#9
I was wondering the same thing if it's constitutionally valid
However I've already heard a few stories of people being infected at church gatherings so just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do

Duuuude!! How in the world are ya? Considering everything going on that is. Haven't seen you in a dogs age.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,204
113
www.christiancourier.com
#10
JUST WONDERING.....

In my opinion, there are at least a couple of Amendments that would argue against such an Order being Constitutional........... I am not aware of any language that overrides these Amendments, but there must be, otherwise.............

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly, when Churches are Ordered to stop having services should be an infringement, right? The right to peaceably assemble seems to also argue against such an Order.

5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This statement would seem to argue against such an Order would it not?

If anyone is aware of Language in the Constitution that allows the Government to usurp these Rights, please post it. I honestly do not know where it is in the Constitution. Am looking...........

thanks
Police Powers During a Pandemic: Constitutional, but Not UnlimitedWeighing the state and local response to COVID-19
"...The U.S. Supreme Court has long agreed that the states have police powers of this sort. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that the police powers, that "immense mass of legislation," as he put it, "which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the federal government," includes "quarantine laws" and "health laws of every description." "
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,256
217
63
#11
Duuuude!! How in the world are ya? Considering everything going on that is. Haven't seen you in a dogs age.
Sometimes I have to take a break from this site for my own inner peace
But I always pop back in eventually
I'm holding out so far but this is stressful as I haven't worked in almost a month
 

JamOn

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2019
4,109
1,561
113
#12
Police Powers During a Pandemic: Constitutional, but Not UnlimitedWeighing the state and local response to COVID-19
"...The U.S. Supreme Court has long agreed that the states have police powers of this sort. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that the police powers, that "immense mass of legislation," as he put it, "which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the federal government," includes "quarantine laws" and "health laws of every description." "
Ive Been reading up on this also, seems it started in 1700’s and deemed state by state enforcement during the yellow fever outbreaks leaders of states was bickering over it, I guess some had more cases than others though could be put to death for disobeying we have come along way since early America on quarantine unless you are a judge who sends a person to be locked in a house with a person with a virus.

I posted what was informative the beginning is mostly opinion.
https://reason.com/2020/02/10/the-coronavirus-and-the-constitution/

Colonial boards of health may have been the first administrative agencies in the US. They exercised Draconian powers that were rooted in English law. The English statutory and common law recognized the right of the state to quarantine and limit the movement of plague carriers. Blackstone observed that disobeying quarantine orders merited severe punishments, including death. The argument of counsel in Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 340-41 (1849) described measures to control a yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia:

For ten years prior, the yellow-fever had raged almost annually in the city, and annual laws were passed to resist it. The wit of man was exhausted, but in vain. Never did the pestilence rage more violently than in the summer of 1798. The State was in despair. The rising hopes of the metropolis began to fade. The opinion was gaining ground, that the cause of this annual disease was indigenous, and that all precautions against its importation were useless. But the leading spirits of that day were unwilling to give up the city without a final desperate effort. The havoc in the summer of 1798 is represented as terrific. The whole country was roused. A cordon sanitaire was thrown around the city. Governor Mifflin of Pennsylvania proclaimed a non- intercourse between New York and Philadelphia.

There is no direct Supreme Court precedent on the due process rights of a person subject to quarantine or isolation, but there is state precedent that the constitutional requirement is provided by the writ of habeas corpus. There is state precedent that isolation or quarantine cannot be indefinite without triggering a periodic right to review of the need for the restriction, which is consistent with Supreme Court precedent on restrictions for mental health commitment and the restrictions for dangerous persons such as sexual predators. While some states have granted more extensive due process rights through statute, it is likely that the Supreme Court would not find these necessary as a US constitutional matter under the Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) test.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
30,762
9,027
113
65
Florida
#13
I was wondering the same thing if it's constitutionally valid
However I've already heard a few stories of people being infected at church gatherings so just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do
I believe that there may be a martial law provision in the constitution that gives the president the authority to suspend certain liberties depending on the situation for a limited time.
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
4,367
1,544
113
#14
My issue is curfews. It is MUCH safer to go out at midnight or overnight (at 24hr places) for groceries as well as really anything if there was a risk in the area. Walmarts in the area I am in close by 11pm now (which is earlier than Kroger did). That was before the Shelter-in-place. I have no idea if they are even open past 6pm now except the gas station is.

3am shop with gloves and a mask (if coughing/sneezing) seeing no one and using self check-out? Where is the risk in that?


Instead funneling everyone down to be in their homes by 6pm leads to places being packed...it makes little sense.
We had our groceries delivered.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
14,686
2,555
113
#15
Sometimes I have to take a break from this site for my own inner peace
But I always pop back in eventually
I'm holding out so far but this is stressful as I haven't worked in almost a month
Yeah I totally understand. 2020 has rocked all of our worlds. So sad to see people struggling. Hubby was out of work a couple yrs ago, I know how that feels.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
5,615
1,825
113
#16
My issue is curfews. It is MUCH safer to go out at midnight or overnight (at 24hr places) for groceries as well as really anything if there was a risk in the area. Walmarts in the area I am in close by 11pm now (which is earlier than Kroger did). That was before the Shelter-in-place. I have no idea if they are even open past 6pm now except the gas station is.

3am shop with gloves and a mask (if coughing/sneezing) seeing no one and using self check-out? Where is the risk in that?


Instead funneling everyone down to be in their homes by 6pm leads to places being packed...it makes little sense.
Although the shortened shopping hours can be viewed as counterproductive, the additional "closed" time is necessary for the store to keep up with current disinfecting protocols.
 

Mii

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2019
1,097
761
113
#17
I actually noticed this at Gas stations but they were still 2am... For a giant store that makes a lot of sense on the time frame. Not sure how they realistically could even disinfect the whole place though beside restrooms, counters, floors, doors.

Those customers that pick up an item and put back at closing? Unless L/P was watching VERY closely this seems impossible...but I suppose basics goes a long way.
 
Mar 14, 2011
67,685
13,471
113
#18
Timeless! History repeats itself.

Came across this poem written in 1869, reprinted during 1919 Pandemic.

It was written in 1869 by Kathleen O’Mara:

And people stayed at home
And read books
And listened
And they rested
And did exercises
And made art and played
And learned new ways of being
And stopped and listened
More deeply
Someone meditated, someone prayed
Someone met their shadow
And people began to think differently
And people healed.
And in the absence of people who
Lived in ignorant ways
Dangerous, meaningless and heartless,
The earth also began to heal
And when the danger ended and
People found themselves
They grieved for the dead
And made new choices
And dreamed of new visions
And created new ways of living
And completely healed the earth
Just as they were healed.

Reprinted during Spanish flu
Pandemic, 1919
Photo taken during Spanish flu

spanish flue lockdown.JPG
 
Mar 14, 2011
67,685
13,471
113
#20
Although the shortened shopping hours can be viewed as counterproductive, the additional "closed" time is necessary for the store to keep up with current disinfecting protocols.
My wife works at meijer, a department/grocery store.. Its crazy what she sees every day.. They try to keep up but it is hard. thats why they went to shorter hours.. They also stopped all adds. hopeing this will stop people from rushing to store to get special pricing.