No, Trump Can’t Force States to Reopen.. By John Yoo

[mystery-ak]

   No, Trump Can’t Force States to Reopen
By John Yoo

April 13, 2020 3:47 PM

The Constitution reserves police powers for the states. The president will have to make do with persuasion.

President Donald Trump is appointing a new “Opening Our Country” task force today to jumpstart the economy by early May. But the White House cannot succeed unless it persuades governors to cooperate. By dividing power, the Constitution creates resiliency in emergencies, but also demands cooperation between the federal and state government.

Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have rendered the trade-offs inherent in public policy only more acute. Even though the coronavirus has killed more than 23,000 Americans and sickened a half-million more, strict lockdowns have held deaths significantly below worst-case projections. On the cost side of the ledger, however, just one month of shelter-in-place policies has thrown more than 16 million people out of work and destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity.

Our elected leaders confront the difficult decision on when to start lifting the lockdowns, even at the risk of a faster spread of COVID-19. Presiding Trump claims that he has the right to determine when businesses open their doors, employees return to work, and consumers shop again. “For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government,” he tweeted earlier today. “Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect . . . It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons.”

more
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/no-trump-cant-force-states-to-reopen/

[Bigun]

No problem!  Just let willing states reopen and I'll assure you the others will soon follow.

[mystery-ak]

Who'll decide when we can reopen? It's not who you might think
By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/492548-wholl-decide-when-we-can-reopen-its-not-who-you-might-think

[jmyrlefuller]

That assumes the lockdowns are constitutional in the first place.

[Bigun]

That assumes the lockdowns are constitutional in the first place.

  A very big assumption indeed!

[aligncare]

The problem with letting governors decide whether to open has to do with markets and commerce. Remember that it was government that forced businesses to shut down by imposing stay at home orders, sidelining their operations and cash flow.

Businesses whose operations are located in states that remain closed would be disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by competitors in states that are free to conduct their business. That could be a death sentence for some companies and their employees.

That would be government creating an unfair and unprecedented advantage for some companies and not others.

[Bigun]

The problem with letting governors decide whether to open has to do with markets and commerce. Remember that it was government that forced businesses to shut down by imposing stay at home orders, sidelining their operations and cash flow.

Businesses whose operations are located in states that remain closed would be disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by competitors in states that are free to conduct their business. That could be a death sentence for some companies and their employees.

That would be government creating an unfair and unprecedented advantage for some companies and not others.

See my comment above.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think the constitutionality of the Executive actions (National and State) to shut down commerce is going to be the subject of much litigation in the near future.  This is NOT going to be the last of what we hear on the subject, not by a long shot!

[Bigun]

I think the constitutionality of the Executive actions (National and State) to shut down commerce is going to be the subject of much litigation in the near future.  This is NOT going to be the last of what we hear on the subject, not by a long shot!

I don't think there is any doubt about that.  Unconstitutional takings and such.

[don-o]

I would assert that the vast majority consider that the Tenth Amendment was nullified by the Civil War. Won't it be interesting if this present tempest makes States Rights respectable again?

And, for the record, I was only mildly surprised with POTUS' misguided declaration of his power. I do hope that he can be convinced otherwise.

[skeeter]

That assumes the lockdowns are constitutional in the first place.

Excellent point. Too bad it took a declaration by Truuuuump to force the question.

[Bigun]

I would assert that the vast majority consider that the Tenth Amendment was nullified by the Civil War.

Damn! And here I was thinking that only another amendment could nullify a previous one!   

Won't it be interesting if this present tempest makes States Rights respectable again?

  Very much so!

And, for the record, I was only mildly surprised with POTUS' misguided declaration of his power. I do hope that he can be convinced otherwise.

You and me both.

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote:
"Damn! And here I was thinking that only another amendment could nullify a previous one!"

Don't be coy.
Who would have thought that the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution could be ignored?

But it, too, is now nullified and lost to history.