The Supreme Court decision that allows states emergency powers doesn’t give them unilateral power to ignore constitutional protections, lawyer and gubernatorial candidate John Klar says.
“Governor Scott does not possess unilateral power to institute whatever laws he wishes just by pinning the name “public health” on them. He has imposed the coronavirus restrictions via gubernatorial edict, not democratically-enacted statutes. If the Legislature passed a stay-at-home law, then perhaps that would withstand constitutional challenge, but no such law has been passed -- this is all just Governor Scott’s edicts. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v Massachusetts that the state could fine a pastor who refused to receive a mandatory smallpox vaccination, ruling that states possessed the power to curtail individual rights for the health and safety of the public. But, there was no creation of an unlimited carte blanche for Governors to do whatever they wanted in the name of public health -- in that 1905 case, there was a statute (a law) which a) had been passed by the legislature with attendant guarantees; and b) could be tested against the Constitution. And, the pastor only lost a $5 fine -- Vermont’s businesses are losing everything."
Comment Below... And find more stories on Water Cooler