Comments on: More on whether shutdown orders are a taking; WSJ federalism reprint ungated

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 04 May 2020 12:52:20 +0000

In reply to Walter Olson.

“mostly”—that’s interesting–so there are wholesale violations . . . .

Here are some questions:

(1) Where are the governors’ powers to lock down people who have recovered?

(2) Jacobson v.. Massachusetts–that involved a mandatory vaccination.

(3) So-called “elective” procedures—when abortion is permitted? Irrational, and therefore illegitimate.

What if Governors’ family members (e.g., Pritzker’s) violate the order with impunity?

And what if the state statutes don’t permit this? Kentucky’s order is on shaky ground.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 03 May 2020 17:11:48 +0000

In reply to SPO.

Your comment comes just in time for today’s posted link, to an article in which I explain why, in fact, most of today’s pandemic-related emergency orders are indeed constitutional.

https://www.overlawyered.com/2020/05/are-the-lockdown-orders-constitutional/

By: SPO

SPO — Sun, 03 May 2020 14:15:34 +0000

It cannot be a taking. If it were, it would bankrupt the state.

These orders are completely illegal.

By: Jerry V

Jerry V — Sat, 02 May 2020 20:53:24 +0000

Interesting topic, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on a related issue. Is the governments moratorium on eviction a taking from the landlord? There have been some proposals to wipe out rent for tenants during the outbreak. Would this be a taking?