I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. I didn’t vote.

In 2020 I voted for Trump because knew Biden would be bad. He has done better than I expected but the inflation is killing me and the focus on the wrong thing isn’t helping.

Early on I was a De Santis fan but my interest has waned as he has taken hard stances on things that need compromise.

  • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cite the law that gives the federal authority to take control form the states.

    USC 42 § 243

    No where in that law is authority taken away from the state’s. Where does that law give federal government authority to take control from the states?

    The Secretary is authorized to accept from State and local authorities any assistance in the enforcement of quarantine regulations made pursuant to this chapter which such authorities may be able and willing to provide.

    The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities between the States with respect to comprehensive and continuing planning as to their current and future health needs

    The Secretary is authorized to develop (and may take such action as may be necessary to implement) a plan under which personnel, equipment, medical supplies, and other resources of the Service and other agencies under the jurisdiction of the Secretary may be effectively used to control epidemics of any disease or condition and to meet other health emergencies or problems.

    The Secretary may, at the request of the appropriate State or local authority, extend temporary (not in excess of six months) assistance to States or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature as to warrant Federal assistance.

    • crashfrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      No where in that law is authority taken away from the state’s.

      I didn’t say that it does. What it does is grant overriding authority to the Secretary take whatever actions are in the interests of public health under the condition that there’s a public health emergency. States retain their authority but the Federal government has superseding authority because it’s the Federal government.

      Where does that law give federal government authority to take control from the states?

      It’s in the exact part you quoted - “the Secretary may take such actions to implement” a plan of control of any disease or condition, or to end any public health emergency or problem.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        What it does is grant overriding authority to the Secretary take whatever actions are in the interests of public health under the condition that there’s a public health emergency.

        No where in the law is the secretary granted authority to take whatever actions are in the interest of public health. There are very specific limits in that law.

        It’s in the exact part you quoted - “the Secretary may take such actions to implement” a plan of control of any disease or condition, or to end any public health emergency or problem.

        You forgot the 2nd half which limits those plans and actions to personal, equipment, and medical supplies under the jurisdiction of the secretary. State hospitals, private hospitals, and their employees do not fall under the jurisdiction of the secretary of HHS.

        • crashfrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          No where in the law is the secretary granted authority to take whatever actions are in the interest of public health.

          It feels like you’re missing a pretty important predicate, and as a result you’re totally misrepresenting what I just said. Go back and read it again - a public health emergency is a particular thing and justifies more legal authority than is normally allowed.

          You forgot the 2nd half which limits those plans and actions to personal, equipment, and medical supplies under the jurisdiction of the secretary.

          Well, yes. The Secretary can tell people what to do and the Secretary can access necessary resources. That’s more or less totally comprehensive of the scope of government power - distribute things and give orders. Were it possible to wave a magic wand and have disease disappear, that power would be enumerated for the Secretary during a public health emergency too.

          State hospitals, private hospitals, and their employees do not fall under the jurisdiction of the secretary of HHS.

          The text of the law you quoted brings them under the authority of HHS in a state of public health emergency.

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Go back and read it again - a public health emergency is a particular thing and justifies more legal authority than is normally allowed.

            Done and done.

            Cite the law that gives the federal authority to take control form the states.

            USC 42 § 243

            There is nothing in that law that gives federal authority to take control from the states.

            Well, yes. The Secretary can tell people what to do and the Secretary can access necessary resources. That’s more or less totally comprehensive of the scope of government power - distribute things and give orders. Were it possible to wave a magic wand and have disease disappear, that power would be enumerated for the Secretary during a public health emergency too.

            The law you cited says HHS secretary can tell HHS employees what to do, and access HHS resources. The law does not give the HHS secretary the authority to confiscate or redistribute private or state owned resources nor allow the HHS secretary control over private or state employees.

            The text of the law you quoted brings them under the authority of HHS in a state of public health emergency.

            Could you provide the text where it says that?

            • crashfrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              There is nothing in that law that gives federal authority to take control from the states

              Technically the government isn’t “taking control from the states” when it uses its superior authority in a public health emergency; the states are still in control, they’re just being directed by the Federal government. They don’t lose authority; it just becomes subordinate to Federal authority. That’s what’s authorized by USC 42 § 243.

              The law you cited says HHS secretary can tell HHS employees what to do, and access HHS resources.

              No, it’s not so limited.

              Could you provide the text where it says that?

              You already have. I can’t make you read it, though.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Technically the government isn’t “taking control from the states” when it uses its superior authority in a public health emergency; the states are still in control, they’re just being directed by the Federal government. They don’t lose authority; it just becomes subordinate to Federal authority. That’s what’s authorized by USC 42 § 243.

                You are not in control if you are being directed by someone else.

                There is nothing in USC 42 § 243 that gives the federal government authority over the states. USC 42 § 243 does not define jurisdiction for HHS.

                The law you cited says HHS secretary can tell HHS employees what to do, and access HHS resources.

                No, it’s not so limited.

                This is the part where you cite the law that gives HHS more authority.

                You already have. I can’t make you read it, though.

                I’ve read USC 42 § 243 multiple times, I honestly don’t see which part of USC 42 § 243 grants HHS authority to direct/control the states response.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’ve read USC 42 § 243 multiple times, I honestly don’t see which part of USC 42 § 243 grants HHS authority to direct/control the states response.

                  It gives them the power to advise and give states help if asked.

                  Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had 50 different plans for COVID. The federal government would have enforced one plan but as I cited previously, even Biden admits that isn’t a power the federal government has.

                  • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I seriously can’t tell if cashfrog is willfully ignorant, ignorant, or trolling. There are other laws he could have cited that some have argued give HHS ultimate authority but USC 42 § 243 is not that law.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      No where in that law is authority taken away from the state’s. Where does that law give federal government authority to take control from the states?

      It doesn’t. If you read down further, you will see the law is about ports of entry.

      The states run their one pandemic show. It’s why we have all the different rules. In parts of Missouri no masks were required. In other areas masks were required. Ironically, the areas without masks did better than those with masks.

      Chicago required masks when you were outside. Oregon the same, most other states did not.

      I think people didn’t see COVID as a threat like the Democrats wanted them to see it. That is why people pushed back.

      Had it been an Ebola outbreak on the same scale, I think people would have tried to be compliant.

      When you look at the mortality rate of COVID, it was tiny. If you caught it, the chances of you dying were very slim unless you were old or had other medical issues.

      Personally, I ignored everything Faucci said and stuck with my training. I didn’t catch COVID until last year; it was a minor case.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I suspect cashfrog just googled laws defining the role of hhs and either didn’t read it or think anyone would verify what he posted.

        If you look at the mortality rate once we stopped putting people on ventilators it went up too. So many knee jerk poor decisions were made out of fear. I’m convinced the ventilator shortage saved so many lives as “the science” started realizing they hurt the outcome and stopped using them.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I could talk this topic for days since I was in the middle of it. One big issue was blue states screaming for more aid that they didn’t need. Centers were setup to handle overflow and for the most part weren’t needed and weren’t used. So we diverted money and resources away from other things to do this when it wasn’t even needed.

          One of my favorite stories was in Italy. They used bubble helmets and ED medication as treatment. Just weird to imagine people in bed with helmets on and erections. The ED medicine made sense. Just a weird image.

          Faucci pushed fear and not good decisions. He did some of our briefings and nobody agreed with him but we have to be quiet. The guy was clearly intoxicated by his power.

          I’m not opposed to wearing mask. I’m opposed to pretending they’ll make a difference. Cloth, surgical mask have almost zero benefit. N95 have some benefit but they’re not magical. I encourage people to wear them because it’s better than nothing but all the lies that it’ll end the pandemic or save grandma were fear mongering which I feel id disgusting.

          Yeah I don’t think he realized it’s pretty common knowledge the states run pandemics and the federal government plays a supporting role. I think it’s a crap model but in Covid I think it saved lives. We’d still be in lockdown if fauci could have forced it.