“The statewide stay-at-place orders issued for the entire state of California clearly constitute a huge and almost unprecedented restriction on our individual civil liberties,” the organization said in a statement. The group highlighted the “overwhelming support” of public health professionals for action “to support our collective well-being.” In the weeks leading up to the wave of stay-at-home orders, mayors and governors urged residents to follow health safety recommendations. Nevertheless, many continued to crowd into parks, bars and recreation centres. In times of danger or threat, people naturally become more cautious, fearful, protective, and suspicious of whatever danger or threat they hold dear. We want to protect our lives; our families, friends and loved ones; Our home and our rights and freedoms. Perhaps because our lives, families, friends, loved ones, homes and property depend so much on it, we protect even more threats to our rights and freedoms. It is not surprising, then, that questions and opinions abound about the constitutionality or other legality of our orders and those of many other governors to “stay home.” Especially at a time when much of society is already on guard with other concerns. So, are stay-at-home orders constitutional or legal? The short and probably correct answer is – probably. Maybe not, but they most likely are. Discussion space We`ll explore this in more detail below, and we should, as there`s plenty of room for discussion. First, we must be very clear about one thing; Recognize the most important thing right now: the police are not our enemy.
Police officers are not legislators or lawyers, and they are not judges – they protect society by enforcing laws. Some have argued that sheriffs, legislators, police chiefs and officers, and state troops should simply “see clearly that stay-at-home orders are unconstitutional” and refuse to enforce them. The problem with this way of thinking, however, is that the police cannot decide the constitutionality or legality of properly passed laws – they take an oath to enforce laws that have been passed. Refusal to apply properly enacted laws would constitute a violation of an officer`s oath and would be considered a dereliction of duty or worse. A legislative body, a state, or a federal government, can pass any law it passes, and a governor or president promulgates it by signing it (or it is signed into law by the legislature overturning a veto), but once enacted, a law can only be considered unconstitutional or illegal or inappropriate by judges. Not by the police, not by the opinions of individuals in society. Once we accept that, we can review the constitutionality or legality of stay-at-home orders. We should – and will – discuss whether such orders are consistent with the U.S. Constitution, but since such emergency orders fall within the police powers of the states, they are generally governed by the constitutions and laws of the states.
State police powers are the ability of a state to regulate behavior and enforce order within its territory in order to improve the health, safety, morality and general welfare of its residents. States have the power to enforce obedience to their laws by any action they deem appropriate, provided that such actions do not violate any of the rights protected by the United States Constitution or their own state constitutions and are not unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive. A big difference Some commented on social media, saying, “Freedom is unconditional” and “The government can`t take away your rights, period.” These are generally correct statements in the philosophical sense, but it should be noted that there is a big difference between “stripped or removed” and “restricted or restricted for a period of time.” We are all aware, or should be, that the federal and state constitutions allow jail or confiscation of property if a person violates certain laws – so freedom is very conditional and the government can restrict your rights. For violations of the worst crimes, the government can permanently deprive you of your rights by ending your existence. Since this column was written in Tennessee and is aimed at a Tennessee audience, let`s look at Tennessee law. We can quickly dispel another recent claim that Governor Bill Lee is declaring martial law. In short, it can`t — the Tennessee Constitution forbids it.