There is NO USA LAW that exempts you from wearing a mask...

"
DarthSki44 wrote:
...
I think we are engaging in semantics, and not in disagreement, so I'm not sure that False / True can apply in the discussion we are having regrading business operations. There is significant grey area, and why there are so many lawsuits pending.


I agree with that inasmuch as the laws and powers can differ between States.

"
I suppose the crux of the actual question here, is an indefinite "emergency" really an "emergency"? Does that overstep the Govender's powers which were meant to centralize a quick response, not entertain ongoing policy without input from citizens or the state legislators? These emergency powers, in my opinion, and a number of legal experts, do not extend permanently, or give the Governor the power to select which businesses stays open, and which don't, or to what degree.


We don't have appropriate regulations and Laws in place that can be directly applied to "Plagues." :)

So, we've got a situation that isn't a "forest fire" or a flood. It's not a temporary power outage or some other event that will likely have a pretty well-defined "end state."

"When is the Emergency going to be over?"
"When the neighborhood has stopped being on fire."
"Oh, OK, cool..."

Despite the whole 1917 Flu thing, we didn't adopt measures in Law to incorporate our experiences there. At least not in the case of these sorts of "Powers." I suppose we were just so relieved it "disappeared" (Everyone who had it stopped living...) that we desperately wanted to ignore the fact it ever happened.

Meanwhile, those countries that were truly ravaged, like much of the East/Orient, actually changed their behavior as a result. Go figure, huh? "Mask Wearing" is socially acceptable in such countries because it's been that way since their own experience with the Influenza Pandemic.

Didn't quite "stick" with us, though...

Once we can establish firm, definite, measurable "End Conditions" for any kind of Emergency Power or any other temporary measure, as well as a way to track progress, then things will be much easier. (The whole "testing" thing and ways to get accurate estimates of public threat) At that point, all that's left to argue about is how many people should be allowed to die so that the ice-cream machine at McDonalds will be fixed so I can get a milkshake.
Where I live it is highly suggested but not mandatory. Most people do in stores, most people don't when walking or in the park.

Most people don't realize that in US all of this is municipal. A city can make an ordinance, or a county in some cases, they can make it (if they wanted to) so they can fine you $100,000 for not wearing a mask. It is not federal.
Why is this hard to understand?
Censored.
"
kolyaboo wrote:

Why is this hard to understand?


Oh we do. We don't agree it is a good thing. :)

And the US President could enact a Nationwide Mask Mandate under National Emergency Laws but it would be difficult to Enforce.
Nasty times are upon us. Weird things are bound to happen. What's next I wonder, will the... camel get... trumped?
Ἀρχή Σοφίας ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις -Ἀντισθένης ἁπλοκύων
"
awesome999 wrote:
"
kolyaboo wrote:

Why is this hard to understand?


Oh we do. We don't agree it is a good thing. :)

And the US President could enact a Nationwide Mask Mandate under National Emergency Laws but it would be difficult to Enforce.


If done, it wouldn't involve any Emergency Powers. It'd be done through the Center for Disease Control, which is part of the Executive Branch of our government and under Presidential administration.

https://www.nwfdailynews.com/story/opinion/2020/08/17/feds-could-order-nationwide-mask-wearing-but-would-difficult/3374796001/

So, it's possible to order it. It "might" even be possible for the President to be the one to order this through that administration and using its powers.

In contrast to the above article, it doesn't really appear that Congress could force legislation to do it : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6djGkt3sAhUVhXIEHYjqBPYQFjABegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrsreports.congress.gov%2Fproduct%2Fpdf%2FLSB%2FLSB10530&usg=AOvVaw2Cxzwd8fpvCZkxiHPlujHy

(sorry for the link-garbage, blame google's obfuscation I don't want to parse.. It's a .pdf)

To sum: Congress controls the purse-strings and could try to mandate some form of mask wearing through its powers relating to Interstate Commerce. BUT, it can't force people to... "commerce." Therefore, if you aren't currently "commercing" it doesn't apply to you... or some form of reasonable excuse thereof.

And, then there's State issues, Civil Rights challenges, etc. All complex stuffs in a nation where the government is only empowered as far as the people are wiling to lend it "power."

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info