Trump Can Encourage States to Lift Lockdowns, but He Can't Decree That Outcome

[EasyAce]

The president has a history of asserting powers he does not actually have.
By Jacob Sullum
https://reason.com/2020/04/14/trump-can-encourage-states-to-lift-their-covid-19-lockdowns-but-he-cant-decree-that-outcome/

Donald Trump has a history of asserting powers he does not actually have, including the power to loosen state libel laws, the power to punish broadcasters who offend him, the power to unilaterally ban firearm accessories, the power to tax Mexican imports to pay for his border wall, and the power to wage war without congressional approval. The president's claim that he gets to decide when businesses should be forced to close in response to the COVID-19 epidemic and when they should be allowed to reopen clearly falls into that category . . .

. . . "What provision in the Constitution gives the president the power to open or close state economies?" a reporter wondered. Trump's reply was less than clarifying: "Numerous provisions. We'll give you a legal brief if you want."

Later Trump added this: "The president of the United States has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do, which is very powerful. The president of the United States calls the shots."

As a general matter, the Constitution reserves to the states the power to deal with epidemics through measures such as quarantines, which is part of their broad "police power," as the Supreme Court confirmed in the landmark 1824 case Gibbons v. Ogden . . .

. . . In theory, Congress could pass a new law dealing with epidemic-related business closures, citing its authority under the Commerce Clause. But since Congress has not done that, it is hard to see where Trump would get the power to tell states whether and when to impose or lift business closure orders . . .

[Hoodat]

Reporter:  What if some States refuse to reopen, and you order them to?  The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution says all powers that don't reside with the President or Congress reside in the States.  How do you .  .  .

President Trump:  Well, if some States refuse to open, I would like to see that person run for election.

Trump's response acknowledges that States have final say, and that the people of those states have final say in who leads those states.  All of which was omitted from the 'news' story.

[EasyAce]

Trump's response acknowledges that States have final say, and that the people of those states have final say in who leads those states.  All of which was omitted from the 'news' story.

It also delivers a none-too-veiled threat of political retaliation if "some states refuse to open," presumably at the figurative snap of his fingers.

[Hoodat]

It also delivers a none-too-veiled threat of political retaliation if "some states refuse to open," presumably at the figurative snap of his fingers.

The only political retaliation would come from the voters of that state.  Trump's statement is unambiguous in that regard.  There is no political retaliation from the government that is even hinted here.

Of course States should have no question about what happens to all the 'free' [sic] federal money that would be cut off once it is no longer needed.  Nothing threatening about that, veiled or otherwise.  It is simply common sense.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The only political retaliation would come from the voters of that state.  Trump's statement is unambiguous in that regard.  There is no political retaliation from the government that is even hinted here.

Of course States should have no question about what happens to all the 'free' [sic] federal money that would be cut off once it is no longer needed.  Nothing threatening about that, veiled or otherwise.  It is simply common sense.

Much more at stake for the states refusing to reopen.

Think about a state like say Arizona opening up.  Think the residents of California might not notice that Arizona will have jobs and businesses open while they sit around effectively in jail?

California will be forced to open up as well.