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.
Certainly we will be extending the 14-day mandatory quarantine for all travel into the state till the end of June, but there are other businesses and activities that we are looking at that are medium risk activities that we’ll look at reopening,”
Certainly we will be extending the 14-day mandatory quarantine for all travel into the state till the end of June, but there are other businesses and activities that we are looking at that are medium risk activities that we’ll look at reopening,”
Alaska Airlines said they were looking at starting to fly into Kona on June 1. Do you think this extension of the quarantine will make them change their mind?
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.
Wickard v Filburn was a disgrace, as were most of the Commerce Clause rulings of the past several decades.
That said, bringing it back to the Hawaii order relative to historical case precedent, it seems to be that much (if not all) of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence concerns some kind of federal law/rule/regulation/order or/and a state action that runs contrary to such law/rule/regulation/order. Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't found any law that was struck down on Commerce Clause grounds independently alone; there seems to always have been some tie-in to some inferior law or policy that was passed pursuant to authority under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the issue of interstate commerce seems to be tied to the concept of a state law or action being preempted by a federal law or policy that was passed pursuant to Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
While I think there has to be some federal law that the Hawaii and other stay-at-home orders bumps up against, if there is not, I do not know what the federal government would claim preempts the the stay-at-home orders. Again, it doesn't seem to be that the Commerce Clause itself and independently has been used to invalidate state action.
Alaska Airlines said they were looking at starting to fly into Kona on June 1. Do you think this extension of the quarantine will make them change their mind?
Unless they somehow got a lucrative cargo contract (and they don’t fly big enough planes for a lot of cargo) high odds are they won’t fly that route. I wouldn’t expect any airlines to ramp up flying to Hawaii until quarantine lifted.
You run into the possibility of not knowing until a few days before the flight but that potential plane full of people will evaporate due to quarantine.
I’d give Alaska at least a few business days to process this new information and then see if you can get an update from them.
Certainly we will be extending the 14-day mandatory quarantine for all travel into the state till the end of June, but there are other businesses and activities that we are looking at that are medium risk activities that we’ll look at reopening,”
Wow, I don’t see this 14 day quarantine getting lifted anytime soon then. Hopefully the damage done from it won’t be irreversible.
Wickard v Filburn was a disgrace, as were most of the Commerce Clause rulings of the past several decades.
That said, bringing it back to the Hawaii order relative to historical case precedent, it seems to be that much (if not all) of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence concerns some kind of federal law/rule/regulation/order or/and a state action that runs contrary to such law/rule/regulation/order. Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't found any law that was struck down on Commerce Clause grounds independently alone; there seems to always have been some tie-in to some inferior law or policy that was passed pursuant to authority under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the issue of interstate commerce seems to be tied to the concept of a state law or action being preempted by a federal law or policy that was passed pursuant to Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
While I think there has to be some federal law that the Hawaii and other stay-at-home orders bumps up against, if there is not, I do not know what the federal government would claim preempts the the stay-at-home orders. Again, it doesn't seem to be that the Commerce Clause itself and independently has been used to invalidate state action.
What I’m saying is, if the federal government was able to make a case that a farmer growing wheat on an extra acre of his land for his cattle affected interstate commerce, an argument can easily be made that a state who shuts down businesses also has an affect on interstate commerce. I understand that this was just a farmer the federal government made a case against rather than an entire state, but that ruling justifies the federal government stepping in.
Alaska Airlines said they were looking at starting to fly into Kona on June 1. Do you think this extension of the quarantine will make them change their mind?
Yes. Few are going to put up with the extension. Long-term damage to Hawaii tourism industry. People will explore, get used to, and save a ton of money, by vacationing in the contiguous 48 states. And perhaps the governor and native Hawaiians are hoping for precisely this outcome.
What I’m saying is, if the federal government was able to make a case that a farmer growing wheat on an extra acre of his land for his cattle affected interstate commerce, an argument can easily be made that a state who shuts down businesses also has an affect on interstate commerce. I understand that this was just a farmer the federal government made a case against rather than an entire state, but that ruling justifies the federal government stepping in.
I don't disagree. All I'm saying is to keep in mind that the federal government in Wikard v. Filburn--and every other Commerce Clause case I can think of--relied on a piece of legislation (specifically, the Agricultural Adjustment Act) to make its argument. The Commerce Clause gives Congress power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Congress, thus, seems to have to actually take steps to regulate via legislation a certain aspect of interstate commerce before the federal government can swoop in and utilize the Commerce Clause to try to invalidate a particular state action or legislation. The Commerce Clause does not appear to be self-enacting and an independent basis to strike down state action.
All of this is to say that the talk of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause to invalidate state stay-at-home orders is likely mostly academic and theoretical if there is not federal legislation that was passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause that the stay-at-home orders run afoul of.
Last edited by whtviper1; 05-15-2020 at 09:42 PM..
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.
