It’s not the state doing this, it’s the Seminole Tribe of Florida. So I don’t believe your argument is valid.

The Gov might have Covid-19

Florida Governor’s Actions Regarding Travel


Governor’s Actions Regarding Travel

Executive Order Number 20-86
On March 27, 2020, Governor DeSantis directed all individuals entering the state of Florida from Louisiana to isolate or quarantine for a period of 14 days from the time of entry into Florida or the duration of the individual’s presence in Florida, whichever is shorter. This includes persons entering Florida by roadways. This order will take effect immediately.

This Executive Order does not apply to individuals employed by airlines or those performing military, emergency, or health responses.

All persons isolating or quarantining will be responsible for all costs associated with their isolation or quarantine. This includes transportation, lodging, food, medical care and any other expenses to sustain the individual during their period of isolation or quarantine.


Executive Order Number 20-82
On March 24, 2020, Governor DeSantis directed all individuals entering the state of Florida from the New York Tri-State Area (Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York) to isolate or quarantine for a period of 14 days from the time of entry into Florida or the duration of the individual’s presence in Florida, whichever is shorter. This order will take effect immediately.

https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/travelers/

Ok so it is the state. Thanks. Same thing, to a lesser degree, Hawaii is doing. I think it can be done in the face of a serious health crisis like we are in the middle of.

It's going to be really fascinating to me when this is all over and they study the numbers, to see if they make any new discoveries to explain the spread of the virus better. When I think of Florida, and how they kept the beaches open well into spring break, were so slow closing things down, have such an elderly population, it seems bizarre to me that they'd be the ones asking others to quarantine. But every time I look, their numbers are surprisingly good relative to other states. And that's awesome - I just don't understand it, and hope there's something we can learn from it.

As soon as someone is charged with a crime for violating this burden, you have a plaintiff, at which point the ACLU or the Goldwater Institute or the Pacific Legal Foundation might take up the cause.

Fwiw, I am pretty sure that a Commerce clause violation would not be the only basis for litigation .

There has been corona virus litigation re a Governor's directive and individual liberty before.

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2020...-restrictions/

https://pacificlegal.org/wisconsin-s...ion-of-powers/...

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2020...constitution/#

CDC now changes their mind again and says it does spread thru touching surfaces. lol

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) edited information posted to its website last week on the transmission of the coronavirus from contaminated surfaces after the health agency deemed it confusing.

“After media reports appeared that suggested a change in CDC’s view on transmissibility, it became clear that these edits were confusing,” a press release published Friday read.

In its statement, the CDC said it's possible to contract COVID-19 from touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching your face, adding: "The primary and most important mode of transmission for COVID-19 is through close contact from person-to-person."

The edit comes after the agency initially said Wednesday that the virus “does not spread easily” by “touching surfaces or objects." In March, it had said it was possible for COVID-19 to spread through surfaces and objects, before updating its guidance to say surfaces are a medium by which the virus does not spread easily."

https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-w...pread-surfaces


Just use common sense, of course it spreads thru touching things other people have touched if they were infected. Only if you then touch your face, etc before washing your hands.

who knows it's a complete mystery why their numbers look so good, it's almost like they've been made up

Florida researcher fired for refusing to manipulate data

I was just going to post the same thing lol. You have an avid Trump supporter who is governor. The researcher was fired after she outed the misleading statistics. I am surprised Bobo is not aware of this.

And all those Spring Breakers flew back home to multiple states after their week was over.

Its almost like you could say that politicians are susceptible to fabrication.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wynn video of new protocols
https://player.vimeo.com/video/422670817

No video from Gov tonight but some details:




Full details
https://www.scribd.com/document/4631...resser-Release

On the one hand, there is a clear precedent that the states cannot bar people from crossing state borders. On the other hand, there is also a clear precedent that the power to quarantine (and to regulate health) is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. (See Gibbons v Ogden.)

Given that the spread of the virus seems to involve asymptomatic carriers, it seems likely that the states have the power to quarantine people traveling from states where COVID-19 is known to exist.

NV Governor just confirmed they are updating the travel advisory before June 4th casino openings and will then welcome all visitors from across the country to the casinos.

Fwiw, CoVid - 19 is known to exist in every State. That however is beside the point.

You acknowledge that a US citizen has a right to travel across any State's line. There is no power reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment to discriminate against a citizen based upon his State residence.

Rather, the 14th Amendment extended protection of Constitutional right against State action.

As for Gibbons v Ogden, I am not sure why you would cite that case as any sort of precedent for your claim.. You may want to explain that; the Gibbons case was when the Federal government ran the table with the Commerce Clause.

Try this summary:

"The doctrine of the “right to travel” actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state. The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ight-to-travel (footnotes in original)


" Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). “For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.’ ” Id. at 501 (citations omitted)."

I disagree with your assertion that a State can order a quarantine based solely upon a persons residence or travel from a particular State. I do not support any discrimination against out-of-state visitors.

If a State wants to minimize public health risks, I think a way more defensible policy would be to require wearing masks in public by everyone, and base any mandatory quarantine on medical grounds based on actual testing, not State of origin grounds. If Covid testing shows positive, then a person may be required to stay at home/self-quarantine or leave the State.

It doesn't appear to me that they changed their mind at all.

What you've said in that first sentence would seem to imply you believe that they were saying it doesn't spread through surfaces, which isn't at all what they said:

"Does not spread easily" - in other words, they want people to understand that's not the main risk. But...

So they were forced to rephrase to:

In other words, they wanted to emphasize that close person-to-person contact is a much bigger issue than surface transmission, the language they used confused people, so they rephrased. Nothing to see here. Really.

Definitely a possibility. I would hope it's a stretch that they would mess with their numbers to the extent required, as I can't see how that wouldn't be discovered at some point, but I guess by now nothing should surprise me.

hmm .. no video on new procedures for staff and players on gaming floor.

I think the real problem is, nobody is really sure of the numbers, even states that think they have been 100% honest will have made mistakes, the cause of death could be wrong, dates could be wrong, a persons location, movements etc, all impact the validity of the data.

In the UK there have identified hot spots around two big sporting events, a football match and a horse racing meeting, and the cases confirm the impact. Had these events been cancelled, the deaths would be much lower, not only by the attendees, but the people they infected. You only have to look at the countries that acted swiftly, and the lower numbers (Germany for example).

Caesars Entertainment Confirms June 4 Reopening for Caesars Palace and Flamingo Las Vegas

No mention of poker.

http://www.edgevegas.com/caesars-ent...ngo-las-vegas/

Gibbons v Ogden speaks on the quarantine power of the state. A quote from the decision:

"[Inspection laws] form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."

This was not the main purpose of the case, but more of an illustration of a point. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of
Health, a case more directly dealing with state quarantine powers, the Court said:

"That from an early day the power of the states to enact and enforce quarantine laws for the safety and the protection of the health of their inhabitants has been recognized by Congress, is beyond question. That until Congress has exercised its power on the subject, such state quarantine laws and state laws for the purpose of preventing, eradicating, or controlling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases, are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, although their operation affects interstate or foreign commerce, is not an open question."

It has always been considered the province of state government to protect public health. This is the exact sort of long-standing understanding of state powers that the Tenth Amendment was meant to cover.

This power extends to making people do things against their will. See, for example, Jacobson v. Massachusuetts, which upheld the constitutionality of compulsory vaccinations.

"The police power of a State embraces such reasonable regulations relating to matters completely within its territory, and not affecting the people of other States, established directly by legislative enactment, as will protect the public health and safety."

The quarantine power of the state should be considered settled at this point. We shouldn't be arguing about whether it is constitutional. A quarantine would not be constitutional if it were unreasonable and arbitrary, but I suspect that questioning medical experts would find a consensus that quarantining interstate travelers is a very reasonable measure if you want to stop the spread of COVID-19.

I guess if your going to play 4 handed, $6/Half hour isn't bad right?

Thanks for the quote, I had not seen it when I looked through the case.

So, does your reading of the law lean toward saying that States can act unless or until Congress decides to occupy the field ? (Depending on the say, the Trump administration either agrees or conversely claims ONLY the federal government can order a quarantine.

We disagree that quarantining travelers based solely on their coming from certain states makes ANY medical sense, versus, say testing people .... something "medical experts" would likely support as the basis for any quarantine order or policy.

I think the quarantine all US citizens who simply cross the State line is clearly both unreasonable and arbitrary, which fails your test for constitutional infirmity..