Perils of ‘Rule by Indefinite Emergency Edict’: Lesson From COVID-19 Plandemic

coronavirus-surface-image shutterstock 1675284382
shutterstock 1675284382

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- On March 15, 2020, two days after then-President Donald Trump declared a national COVID-19 emergency, Cornell law professor Michael Dorf urged Congress to impose a nationwide lockdown and suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Congress never took either of those constitutionally dubious steps, which Dorf said were necessary to “save the nation.”

Instead, as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch noted last week, “executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale,” amounting to one of “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties” in U.S. history.

That experience made it clear that legislators needed to reconsider the definition of emergencies and impose limits on the powers they confer.

The context of Gorsuch’s comments was a case involving public health orders that allowed immediate expulsion of unauthorized immigrants, including asylum seekers, ostensibly based on the fear that they would exacerbate the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued the first such order in March 2020, citing the authority granted by 42 U.S. Code Section 265, and the policy was repeatedly extended by the Trump and Biden administrations.



Those Title 42 orders inspired litigation by opponents and supporters, resulting in conflicting district court decisions. Meanwhile, the public health rationale for the orders, never very persuasive, became steadily less credible.

Ultimately, it became clear that maintaining the orders had nothing to do with curtailing the spread of COVID-19. As Gorsuch remarked in December at an earlier stage of this case, “the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis,” and “courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency.”

The COVID-19 connection was likewise debatable when the CDC imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium in September 2020 and repeatedly extended it, citing another section of Title 42. That startling power grab, the Supreme Court eventually ruled, was beyond the authority that Congress had granted the agency.

The Court reached a similar conclusion when it considered the vaccine mandate that the Biden administration tried to impose by treating COVID-19 transmission as a workplace hazard. Meanwhile, however, local and state officials had ordered sweeping, long-lasting restrictions on social and economic activity, impeded only occasionally by judicial intervention.

Those orders often involved scientifically senseless rules and arbitrary distinctions between “essential” and “nonessential” businesses. They impinged on fundamental rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of association, the free exercise of religion, and the right to armed self-defense.

Worse, all of these restrictions had the force of law, sometimes backed by criminal as well as civil penalties, even though the elected representatives charged with lawmaking did not participate in formulating or approving them!?

The orders were based on statutes that granted governors vast powers during emergencies that they themselves declared and extended.

That end run, which became increasingly untenable as emergency declarations dragged on for many months, provoked a flurry of legislative activity in 2020, 2021 and 2022. According to a tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2021 at least 47 states considered limits and conditions on governors’ emergency powers, and more than two dozen approved them.

Some of those laws set time limits on emergency declarations, allow legislators to override them, and/or require legislative approval to extend them. Kentucky also imposed more specific constraints, barring emergency orders that interfere with prayer or protest.

The pandemic demonstrated that “states have these very broad emergency powers available to governors with very little in the way of limitations,” Daniel Dew, director of legal policy at the Pacific Legal Foundation, told my Reason colleague Eric Boehm in 2021. Legislators who take their jobs seriously should address that hazard to freedom before the next emergency rolls around.

“If emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others,” Gorsuch warns. “Rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”


About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum

AI tools. Note: This article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.

9 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ruffhouse

This was only a test- and it worked very well. I still see fools wearing masks. Those who willingly lined up for the jab are the biggest fools, however.
Never forget. Never forgive.

Arizona

Americans are going to need to step up and decide whether they will be slaves or free. The sides are known. The conflict is inevitable.

Grigori

The longer “they” postpone that, the better off they are. Every week, more of us old farts who have the knowledge, skill, or will, to fight either become permanently infirm or die. The longer they put it off, the easier they have it.

Cappy

As an old fart, I fully understand your point. I lost an elderly Korea Vet friend awhile back. Before he died he told me he really resented that he wasn’t going to be around for the fight.

Tank

Seems beyond obvious. Liberalism & apathy aligned as ally’s consciously or not are/is a metal disorder(s). Prove me wrong.

Ram

I actually think you are correct. . . If you don’t add antimony to the mix
you will get a “metal” disorder.

chocopot

It has been truly frightening to see how willing so many elected officials were to declare themselves dictators and suspend the guaranteed rights of citizens. Keep in mind that all of these elected officials swore an oath to protect and defend either the United States Constitution or their State constitutions when they began their term of office yet, in a heartbeat, they declared those rights null and void and became dictators over a contrived “pandemic.” Truly despicable.

Nurph

I just don’t see how we can avoid an all-out civil war again. I mean, during the 19th century Civil War sides were pretty polarized. I can’t see how present-day is less than then. Maybe my blinders are on, but we’re sitting on a powder keg fueled & fanned by the MSM, democrat policies, & the NWO/WHO.

ras52

Coronavirus, brought to us by the CCP, and the demoncrats! Fauci also!

Last edited 1 year ago by ras52