Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect our quarantine for visitors will be extended until at least the end of June and perhaps longer. We will follow the West Coast..
LA stay at home has been extended through July. Big cities need to be more careful than rural areas due to population density. Other areas will be opening up.
State of California has no quarantine for inbound travelers and never has. Only west coast state I've heard that does suggest doing so is Nevada.
I was watching the news when that "breaking news hit - the Mayor of LA quickly called in to clarify there will be some sort of restrictions thru July - not necessarily stay at home.
I've read that Iceland will be opening up to tourists June 15. The deal is: Either 14 day quarantine or virus test upon arrival. I guess if the test is positive the traveler would have the option of immediately leaving or quarantining.
The Las Vegas Review Journal reported today that the MGM Resort will re-open "by early June". Venetian/Palazzo to reopen "in June".
Are we next?
As I've stated a bunch of times - Vegas and the West Coast open - Hawaii will begin to open shortly thereafter. I see phase 1 lift resident quarantine - phase 2 lift mainland quarantine - phase 3 lift international quarantine. I see phase 1 May 31 or earlier - phase 2 sometime between mid-June to mid-July - phase 3 - sometime after September
Here is an article from Newsweek - quoting the Lt Gov - bolding mine
"I know that we're working super rigorously on making sure we have a calendar to open things up," Green said. "And I believe next month will be the month where we can start seeing some ability to bring in more tourism, as long as we can do it safely."
Visitors to the beach should be part of the same household, and not in groups of more than 10 people.
Anyone on the beach should socially distance themselves from anyone who isn’t a member of their own household, in accordance with guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
The sandy areas of beaches are to be closed overnight, only opening 30 minutes before sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset. Shoreline fishing or other outdoor exercises are exceptions to this restriction.
All of the other restrictions within Governor David Ige’s “Safer At Home” order are to be followed.''
Beaches reopening will come with one other caveat, according to Kawakami: all mandatory quarantine rules that are in effect for travelers to the island are being extended until at least June 30.
As I've stated a bunch of times - Vegas and the West Coast open - Hawaii will begin to open shortly thereafter. I see phase 1 lift resident quarantine - phase 2 lift mainland quarantine - phase 3 lift international quarantine. I see phase 1 May 31 or earlier - phase 2 sometime between mid-June to mid-July - phase 3 - sometime after September
Here is an article from Newsweek - quoting the Lt Gov - bolding mine
"I know that we're working super rigorously on making sure we have a calendar to open things up," Green said. "And I believe next month will be the month where we can start seeing some ability to bring in more tourism, as long as we can do it safely."
Seems like a reasonable plan to me. Particularly the loosening of the quarantine and stay home orders in phases ... and especially the removal of the 14-day quarantine in conjunction with a rapid test.
Just seeing the pictures out of Wisconsin this morning of so many people simply rushing out to bars with no masks and no social distancing ... no appropriate concern at all it appears ... shows how irresponsible people will be once the 14-day quarantine on tourists is lifted. So a rapid test will at least add an additional piece of protection.
I think many people are thinking the virus isn't so bad after all because hospitals weren't swamped. Without realizing hospitals weren't swamped because of the shut downs and stay home orders. I suspect we will see an increase bumping up in Wisconsin soon.
It doesn't. But it does set court precedent for State emergency powers.
And if one thinks an overreach occurs - one can try to find relief in the courts. However, courts are bound by the precedent and that is why even the most conservative of judges are not overturning stay at home orders - a judge would essentially have to say that ruling was incorrect - would need to stand up on appeal - and ultimately the Supreme Court.
As long as you are not being forced to stay at home. The issue is unreasonably forcing businesses to be closed. That is a violation of a persons right to property and violates the Commerce Clause. In this ruling it was made clear that states can enact policies in such a unreasonable manner or go beyond what is reasonably required for the safety of the public that would go outside Constitutional bounds.
This lockdown is not a one time action like the vaccine case. Indefinite restrictions on a persons movement outside their home with a few exceptions that is being implemented by governors and mayors when a person hasn’t even tested positive for the virus I believe is unconstitutional. People have the natural right to earn a living. The purpose of stay at home and close down businesses was to be temporary to achieve flattening the curve. The curve is flattened. Governors and mayors do not have the Constitutional authority to indefinitely and arbitrarily close down businesses. The entire general population being under quarantine is unprecedented. Quarantine laws traditionally separate an individual or an entire group of people from the general population, not quarantining the entire general population.
There is an issue when important medical procedures are banned, but abortion is essential? Businesses with a few people inside, people driving in their cars or taking a stroll through the park are being stopped by police, yet Marijuana shops are allowed to be open? Why can’t gun shops be open? There is no rhyme or reason by many of these governors and mayors and there is very little transparency.
In Shelton v. Tucker “Even [when] the governmental purpose [is] legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Mayors like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot are completely out of control.
If there is any good to this virus, Tyrannical governors and mayors are being exposed for who they are.
As long as you are not being forced to stay at home. The issue is unreasonably forcing businesses to be closed. That is a violation of a persons right to property and violates the Commerce Clause. In this ruling it was made clear that states can enact policies in such a unreasonable manner or go beyond what is reasonably required for the safety of the public that would go outside Constitutional bounds.
This lockdown is not a one time action like the vaccine case. Indefinite restrictions on a persons movement outside their home with a few exceptions that is being implemented by governors and mayors when a person hasn’t even tested positive for the virus I believe is unconstitutional. People have the natural right to earn a living. The purpose of stay at home and close down businesses was to be temporary to achieve flattening the curve. The curve is flattened. Governors and mayors do not have the Constitutional authority to indefinitely and arbitrarily close down businesses. The entire general population being under quarantine is unprecedented. Quarantine laws traditionally separate an individual or an entire group of people from the general population, not quarantining the entire general population.
There is an issue when important medical procedures are banned, but abortion is essential? Businesses with a few people inside, people driving in their cars or taking a stroll through the park are being stopped by police, yet Marijuana shops are allowed to be open? Why can’t gun shops be open? There is no rhyme or reason by many of these governors and mayors and there is very little transparency.
In Shelton v. Tucker “Even [when] the governmental purpose [is] legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.” Mayors like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot are completely out of control.
If there is any good to this virus, Tyrannical governors and mayors are being exposed for who they are.
I'd agree with you on the Commerce Clause, but certain caveats to be discussed in my third paragraph don't make this such an open and shut case inherently. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning and scope of the Commerce Clause so much that its almost limitless. Hell, if the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to prohibit the growing of marijuana for solely personal use under the commerce clause--even in the face of state efforts to legalize for medical purposes--as doing so was a permissible way to prevent or limit access to marijuana for other uses, I don't see how closing down or otherwise limiting businesses within a state, which has an even bigger impact on interstate commerce, would not fall under the Commerce Clause IF there is federal legislation, presidential executive order, or other federal rule that ran contrary to the stay at home orders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
To the point in bold above, this is why when President Trump originally went on his rant about being the one who could decide to allow states to reopen, I didn't bat an eye, as I saw that he very well could--if exercised properly--dictate the reopening of states in a meaningful way as it related to matters of interstate commerce.
However, it remains unclear to me how exactly a Commerce Clause case would/could be brought under this circumstance. Typically, Commerce Clause cases are either brought by the federal government against states for violating specific federal law passed via the Commerce Clause, by states against the federal government regarding federal legislation that states claim exceed the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause, or by private citizens against the states or federal government for enforcing federal law that private citizens allege exceeds the scope of federal powers under the Commerce Clause.
If the third paragraph is the scope under which lawsuits can be brought by either states or private citizens against a policy (I am not sure and would have to conduct more thorough research), then a private citizen would likely be the wrong plaintiff to bring a Commerce Clause case seeking to invalidate the stay at home orders. If the third paragraph is correct, then only the federal government--assuming that there is federal legislation that the stay-at-home orders violate via interstate commerce (there most likely are)--would be able to bring a lawsuit to invalidate state stay-at-home orders under the Commerce Clause. And that's not a step that I see President Trump taking at this time, especially as it would likely lead to prolonged litigation that wouldn't be resolved anytime soon.
I'd agree with you on the Commerce Clause, but certain caveats to be discussed in my third paragraph don't make this such an open and shut case inherently. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning and scope of the Commerce Clause so much that its almost limitless. Hell, if the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to prohibit the growing of marijuana for solely personal use under the commerce clause--even in the face of state efforts to legalize for medical purposes--as doing so was a permissible way to prevent or limit access to marijuana for other uses, I don't see how closing down or otherwise limiting businesses within a state, which has an even bigger impact on interstate commerce, would not fall under the Commerce Clause IF there is federal legislation, presidential executive order, or other federal rule that ran contrary to the stay at home orders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
To the point in bold above, this is why when President Trump originally went on his rant about being the one who could decide to allow states to reopen, I didn't bat an eye, as I saw that he very well could--if exercised properly--dictate the reopening of states in a meaningful way as it related to matters of interstate commerce.
However, it remains unclear to me how exactly a Commerce Clause case would/could be brought under this circumstance. Typically, Commerce Clause cases are either brought by the federal government against states for violating specific federal law passed via the Commerce Clause, by states against the federal government regarding federal legislation that states claim exceed the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause, or by private citizens against the states or federal government for enforcing federal law that private citizens allege exceeds the scope of federal powers under the Commerce Clause.
If the third paragraph is the scope under which lawsuits can be brought by either states or private citizens against a policy (I am not sure and would have to conduct more thorough research), then a private citizen would likely be the wrong plaintiff to bring a Commerce Clause case seeking to invalidate the stay at home orders. If the third paragraph is correct, then only the federal government--assuming that there is federal legislation that the stay-at-home orders violate via interstate commerce (there most likely are)--would be able to bring a lawsuit to invalidate state stay-at-home orders under the Commerce Clause. And that's not a step that I see President Trump taking at this time, especially as it would likely lead to prolonged litigation that wouldn't be resolved anytime soon.
1942 Wickard v Filburn is an interesting and disastrous ruling that gives the federal government unlimited regulatory power. It would be easy for the federal government to make the argument that states who shut businesses down has an affect on interstate commerce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
