Coronavirus

Trump Can Encourage States to Lift Their COVID-19 Lockdowns, but He Can't Decree That Outcome

The president has a history of asserting powers he does not actually have.

|

Donald Trump has a history of asserting powers he does not actually have, including the power to loosen state libel laws, the power to punish broadcasters who offend him, the power to unilaterally ban firearm accessories, the power to tax Mexican imports to pay for his border wall, and the power to wage war without congressional approval. The president's claim that he gets to decide when businesses should be forced to close in response to the COVID-19 epidemic and when they should be allowed to reopen clearly falls into that category.

"For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion," Trump tweeted yesterday morning, "some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect….It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons."

Trump defended that claim during a White House press briefing that evening. "What provision in the Constitution gives the president the power to open or close state economies?" a reporter wondered. Trump's reply was less than clarifying: "Numerous provisions. We'll give you a legal brief if you want."

Later Trump added this: "The president of the United States has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do, which is very powerful. The president of the United States calls the shots."

As a general matter, the Constitution reserves to the states the power to deal with epidemics through measures such as quarantines, which is part of their broad "police power," as the Supreme Court confirmed in the landmark 1824 case Gibbons v. Ogden. Congress also has claimed a role in this area under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The Public Health Service Act, for example, empowers the secretary of health and human services to "to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession."

In theory, Congress could pass a new law dealing with epidemic-related business closures, citing its authority under the Commerce Clause. But since Congress has not done that, it is hard to see where Trump would get the power to tell states whether and when to impose or lift business closure orders.

Berkeley law professor John Yoo, an energetic champion of presidential power who nevertheless has not been shy about rebuking Trump for overstepping his, argues that even a new act of Congress could not give Trump the authority he thinks he already has. "Congress can control commerce that crosses state lines, and even prohibit wholly intrastate activity that affects the national markets," he writes in National Review. "It cannot, however, force individuals and businesses to engage in business in the first place."

Yoo cites National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius, the 2012 case in which the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare's individual health insurance mandate by recharacterizing it as a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the majority in upholding the mandate-cum-tax, rejected the idea that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to compel economic transactions such as the purchase of health insurance, and the four dissenting justices agreed with that conclusion.

If Congress cannot force consumers to buy stuff, Yoo figures, it cannot force businesses to sell stuff by reopening their doors. He also notes that the federal government would be on its own in enforcing such an order, since the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot "commandeer" state officials to achieve its policy goals.

Yoo does not directly address the question of whether Congress could use the Commerce Clause not to compel commerce but to override state bans on it, leaving businesses free to reopen if they want to do so. But he suggests such as move would be inconsistent with federalism.

"By dividing power, the Constitution creates resiliency in emergencies, but also demands cooperation between the federal and state government," Yoo writes. "The Constitution's grant of limited, enumerated powers to the national government does not include the right to regulate either public health or all business in the land….Our federal system reserves the leading role over public health to state governors."

At the same time, Yoo argues that Trump has the power to encourage, though not force, the lifting of lockdowns. "Trump could use the money appropriated by Congress to respond to the pandemic as a reward for states that end their lockdowns in May," he says. "He could send disaster relief funds, made available by the Stafford Act in time of emergency, or allocate more medical equipment and protection supplies to these states, perhaps on the ground that they risk greater harm from the virus in exchange for opening up."

Congress, if it were so inclined, could itself dangle such carrots (which also can be seen as sticks) in exchange for the loosening of state restrictions on economic activity. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of the spending power to obtain results that Congress could not directly mandate. In the 1987 case South Dakota v. Dole, for example, the Court allowed Congress to withhold federal highway funding from states that declined to raise their minimum alcohol purchase ages to 21, a policy that established a de facto national standard without officially compelling that outcome.

It nevertheless seems plain that Trump, on his own, cannot force states to lift their lockdowns until they are ready to do so. If anyone is "creating conflict and confusion" on that score, it's the president.

Advertisement

NEXT: Should We Replace Traditional Elections with Sortition?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Donald Trump has a history of asserting powers he does not actually have … and the power to wage war without congressional approval.

    Thankfully, no other president has ever been so arrogant as to try something like this.

    1. Like with a pen and phone?

      1. This article is a pile of shit and so is the author. This is the same author that will be blaming Trump when a Governor has a death saying that it’s Trump’s fault for allowing him to open the state. You have ZERO credibility buddy. You are not a journalist you are a hack.

    2. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The current president is the one we need to worry about at any given time.

      1. “The current president is the one we need to worry about at any given time.”

        Those who forget history…

        And honestly, yours isn’t even a very good take, need for remebering history aside, because the legitimacy of these decisions is part of the discussion, and that hinges, at least in part, on the behavior of previous presidents.

        1. You can learn from history without saying “Obama did it too” every damn time someone says something about Trump overstepping the proper bounds of his powers as president. Obama sucked. Trump sucks too. They all do. But I’m still quite glad Hillary isn’t president.

          the legitimacy of these decisions is part of the discussion, and that hinges, at least in part, on the behavior of previous presidents.

          But isn’t that the whole problem? Shouldn’t we, as limited government types, be going back to the constitution to determine the legitimacy of presidential power claims?

          1. When Obama supporters spent 8 years saying “Bush did it too”, it is not only valid but important for Trump supporters to say “Obama did it too.”

            1. Normally, I would agree with Zeb that the ‘X did it too’ is just a race to the bottom. However, this isn’t a case of “Can he do this under the AUMF?” or “Can he make a penaltax at thing with a pen and a phone?” In this case, it’s pretty clearly the opposite.

              If someone, anyone, is infringing on Americans’ rights on American soil, is the President completely incapable of intervening? Suddenly, people in the camp Zeb is defending develop the ability to read a document that they’ve been declaring dead for 50 or more years.

              What horrible Precedent would trump be setting? Especially that hasn’t already been set. Are we going to lament future Presidents curtailing Governors quarantine powers? Is that curtailing going to
              morph into a future President forcing some vulnerable population out of quarantine? Fuck that noise.

              1. I can’t really argue with you in general. And I’m not opposed to a federal role of reining in states when they overstep their proper powers.
                But if governors do have the power to do what they are doing now, then the president probably doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have the power to tell them when they have to stop using those powers. And if they don’t, then something should be done now, if the federal government has a constitutional role to play.

            2. Well, I thought that was fucking dumb too. When Obama was president it was quite right and proper to criticize him for doing things that Bush did that he shouldn’t have done.

            3. Maybe, but I suspect Obama knew enough about Constitutional law to also know that some of the things he said (and did) were at odds with some Article or Amendment. He just thought he could get away with it.

              Trump seems to have the Constitutional knowledge of a 2nd grader (and not a bright one). He says and does imperial things, and seems to really believe he has the legal authority.

            4. You’re also ignoring the amount of difference and oversteps between the two. There is no way a competent person could even call the oversteps equal. Look at the number of national injunctions alone. Obama set a record for 0-9 decisions. Trump isnt even close to the record. He has active resistance at the judicial level, the congressional level, and even the executive level.

            5. Nobody at Reason spent eight years saying “Bush did it, too”. So, why don’t you take that line of reasoning somewhere else, where it is applicable?

      2. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        Sure, then the war powers discussion is a non-sequitur when discussing the lesser evil between the President and various Governors wrt Habeas Corpus and (un)Constitutional COVID quarantine-cum-internment policies.

      3. Moreover, the Governors infringing on individuals’ rights, and the President infringing on the Governors’ powers, if only to insist that they stop, arguably is two wrongs making a right.

        1. Some governors have overstepped their bounds. That still does not give the president the authority to command all the other governors. His assertion that everyone must do what he say is utterly wrong. There is this thing called Federalism and the President does not have the blanket authority to override a governor’s decision.

          If he has a problem with a specific governor, he can make that specific case. But he does NOT have the authority to unilaterally state that shelter in place orders must cease on a certain date.

          1. “His assertion that everyone must do what he say is utterly wrong.”

            Got a cite for that?
            You’ll forgive me, since Trump is accused of saying many, many things, and most of the claims are TDS-driven bullshit.

            1. So, after 3 hours, you can’t seem to come up with a cite?
              We’ll accept you’re blowing smoke out your ass and hope that your TDS is approaching a fatal level, you lying piece of shit.

              1. And, by the way, the “after 3 hours” remark is moronic. This isn’t a conversation, it’s a comments section where commenters stop by when they can.

            2. About the 1:13 mark in this video:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QXrQDTDYo

              “This is … when somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total. And that’s the way it’s gotta be.”

              About 2:00 minutes:

              “The Federal government has absolute power.”

              1. He has already walked that back.

                And this exemplifies the difference between Trump and most previous Prezs. Trump does his ‘brainstorming’ in public or on Twitter, gets feedback, and then does something more reasonable.

                Obama and others operated in secret so we had no idea what was considered. The Nixon and LBJ tapes showed this , as did the “I’ll have more flexibility “ quote. F those guys.

                1. Fine, F those guys. And why not F Trump, too?

                  Why must you Trump fans always come up with some rationalization to defend the things Trumps does and says? Always.

      4. Zeb you’ve seemed more worked up than usual lately.

        1. This all has me more agitated than any other “crisis” in my lifetime. I’m very worried about the economic effects, and perhaps even more about the lasting social and political effects. The number of people who were just begging for this is disturbing and I’m absolutely disgusted by the behavior of politicians and most of the media.
          I’m a little worked up.

          1. yeah sorry man. i usually quote Doc Brown (‘everything will be fine’) but i don’t know if that’ll work for you right now…

            1. everything likely would have been fine as he was referring to the entire country and not an individual had we not shut everything down without a shred of proof or precedence and likely for no reason other than political fodder. Unfortunately you are too stupid to see the plain truth. Did you criticize Cuomo for saying the same thing. Did you criticize DiBasio for telling people to go out to the movie theaters. Nope. Because you are a piece of shit low life uneducated knuckle dragging dishonest liberal cocksucker who can’t think for himself, gets most of his news from Facebook. Complete lack of critical thinking skills, one dimensional thinking and an obtuse intellect coupled with a borderline IQ and questionable intellectual functioning.

      5. I have a pen and a phone is a direct response to the claim in that comment. …..unlike YOUR comment.

      6. Since we are loading little proverbs how about those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. Actually has a lot more relevance than your comment. That mindset is also the cornerstone of hypocrisy. Sorry but if the current President is the one we need to worry about we should have exercised that option during the Obama administration. You liberals like to live by double standards. They don’t fly in the adult world. The initial comment is ignorant and based on fact. You trying to provide subtle support only makes you sound nearly as foolish just in a polite way. Doesn’t make the comment any less ignorant because it was polite.

    3. Obama did it first! So that makes it moral! Hah! I ran rings around you logically!

      1. No, not “first”, just “before”.

      2. So much farther from everyone is wrong, no need for analysis.

      3. No it simply points out the partisan intellectual dishonesty of Trump haters. They have zero credibility and sound like outright morons. You should know you are one of them. Intellectual moron.

    4. Thankfully those other presidents aren’t president anymore so who gives a shit about them?

      1. The future presidents who use those actions as justification for their own.

    5. So, that makes it OK when Trump does it?

      1. You know, one if the indicators of intelligence is the ability to recognize humor.

    6. You are not only painfully ignorant of history but you are painfully ignorant.

  2. The president of the United States has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do

    I’m sure there’s an NYT editorial being drafted right now to refute this.

    1. Only cherry picking the quotes where Trump doesn’t go full childish idiot? Let me help you:

      “When somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total.”

      1. You know, one of the indicators of intelligence is the ability to recognize humor.

  3. Trump is a putz who can’t do anything right! That is why I am voting for Joe Biden and the Constitution respecting, fiscally responsible Democrats this fall.

    1. Trump is a putz. This has no bearing on whether Joe Biden is also a putz.

    2. and you are a cocksucker who wouldn’t know the right thing if it bit him on the ass. Your also a fraud and phoney.

  4. as the Supreme Court confirmed in the landmark 1824 case Gibbons v. Ogden.

    YOU MANIACS! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

  5. State Stay at Home orders are unconstitutional.
    The shadows and penumbra of the constitution do not make them constitutional.
    See Brown v. Board of Education, CA Prop 8 and AZ SB 1070 on what the Feds can do with unconstitutional state laws.

    I’ll bet the courts dismiss the State Stay at Home orders with Qualified Immunity.

    1. State decrees about closing businesses and shelter in place are unconstitutional.

      There is an interesting provision in the US constitution about states requesting federal assistance under Article IV, section 4. This potentially might give Trump the power to help states by ending the Lefty state destruction of the the US economy.

      States dont have to ask for help from the federal government but they did.

      1. What part of the Constitution, which you love and so we can assume you are familiar with, does a state closing a business violate?

        1. If a farmer can’t grow food for his family without running afoul of the Commerce Clause, states certainly can’t shut businesses.

          Don’t these shut downs severely impact interstate commerce?

  6. BTW, RIP John Conway. Coronavirus got him, though he lived a full life of 82 years. Here is a great video explaining his free will theorem. In a nutshell, it shows that if humans have free will, so do elementary particles. Pretty wild and a great introduction to indeterminism (as opposed to determinism and randomness).

    1. I’ve always thought that free will is a less interesting question than people make it out to be.
      I’ll check this out. Maybe it will change my mind.

    2. RIP, Dr. Conway. I had the pleasure of talking with him. Genius. If you don’t know his Game of Life, please check it out. Fascinating on many levels.

  7. <i."Our federal system reserves the leading role over public health to state governors."

    “Yeah! Fuck the CDC!”

    1. Amen.

      Or was that supposed to be sarcasm?

      1. “Sarcasm”? Moi?!

  8. The only thing worse than the Covid-19 (Kung-Flu for the layperson) hysteria is having to constantly keep Trump in check even after three and a half years into this circus he calls a presidency. And, looking at that ugly mug in these Reason articles!

    1. Let the hate flow through you….

    2. You are among the most imbecilic of the lefty twits posting here.

      1. Hello pot, glad you could join the conversation. How’s that cardboard box working out for you in that damp Frisco Bay weather, you ignorant piece of shit!

        1. “Wearenotperfect
          April.14.2020 at 7:43 pm
          “Hello pot, glad you could join the conversation. How’s that cardboard box working out for you in that damp Frisco Bay weather, you ignorant piece of shit!”

          Hello, lefty pile of shit.
          My multi-million dollar home is quite comfortable.
          Did you have a point, other than proving you are a pathetic pile of shit?
          I didn’t think so…

    3. for me it’s listening to low life pieces of shit like yourself spout your never ending bullshit and ignorance.

  9. Once again, ‘reason’ demonstrates its amazing understanding of absolutely nothing. First the dhimmicrats resisted Trump’s call to open the country by Easter. Now, knowing dhimmicrats will do the exact opposite of whatever Trump says, he says to keep the lockdown in place. It’s a brilliant piece of reverse psychology, and it’s working.

    1. Glad to see someone else saw it.

    2. Huh, I hadn’t heard the 4d chess argument in a while

      1. Nor did you offer anything other than your TDS.

    3. Funny, the Republican governor of the state I live in didn’t open by Easter, but somehow that turns into it’s just the dimmicrats in your mind.

  10. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1250154845899759623

    I wanted to believe this was a joke or a hoax – @raleighpolice
    calling a protest a “non-essential activity” and arresting someone for speaking out against the state’s lockdown. But it is as real as Stalin.

    Seriously. This is where we are in the USA. And people apparently are OK with this.

  11. i get the sense he’s trolling …

    1. Of course he’s trolling! His whole presidency is a big joke to see how many people are going to go along with his ridiculousness, and how many who don’t will have their heads asplode. In the meantime the rest of us are watching the American experiment burn in a giant dumpster fire.

      1. I sadly believe this is your actual juvenile view of reality.

        1. The funniest part is him trying to pretend he’s “above” the fray, when he has literally nothing to post other than “orange man bad”
          Brandy is eunuch level stupid

          1. Let me clue you in: Orange Man is bad.

            1. L’Hombre Naranja es muy malo!

        2. And your take on reality is to overlook anything Trump does. What motivates that? Why would anyone want to defend such a worthless person?

      2. ahhh the troll calling someone else a troll.

  12. Whether this is Trump riffing, or trolling, or just in general being obnoxious, it is very clear that the left and libertarians simply take him at his word every time. Which is shocking given how many times he has rolled you folks. So many times you’ve brought up some violation of law, ethics, morality, or whatever bug is up your ass lately only to finally realize at the end you’ve been had.

    It’s simple dog psychology, and Trump has your number.

    1. So, we are supposed to just ignore the words that the President of the United States utters? You know what else is “just words” — the Constitution.

      1. So 3/4 of states have ratified Trump’s off the cuff remarks?

        I seem to have missed that.

  13. It all depends on how he goes about it. The lockdowns are an infringement on our civil rights like nothing we’ve ever seen before, even in wartime. Precedents involving states’ quarantine powers are not relevant here because people are being put under house arrest who don’t even have the disease.

    The relevant precedent here is that the Federal government can intervene to stop States from oppressing their own citizens. We saw this famously during the Civil Rights era, but it was always implied in the fact that a State has to accept the Constitution as a condition for statehood. If the draconian measures being adopted were to be declared not protected unter “police powers” and thus unconstitutional, then they would be over and the country could reopen.

    Of course Mr. Trump can’t declare something unconstitutional, but he could spearhead the effort and try to protect the people with executive orders in the meantime if he were so inclined. Whether those orders would all be within his legal authority is a good question, but they’d only have to be in effect for so long until the Supreme Court can make a decision on both them and the States’ lockdowns.

    1. “…The relevant precedent here is that the Federal government can intervene to stop States from oppressing their own citizens…”

      Exactly on point.
      No, Trump can’t ‘force people to go back to work’; no, he can’t ‘tell governors to tell people to go back to work’.
      He can and should point out that the self-imprisonment enforce by the governors is unconstitutional and if the don’t lift the orders, begin court action to force them to do such.

      1. It will be fun watching D governors go to court to try to keep their constituents in bandage

    2. If this shit has to go to SCOTUS, it is all over anyways. I cannot think of anything more humiliating to the American dream than millions of people hiding in their houses, yearning for some lawyers to waltz up the ladder of appeals until the day that 9 grey, black robed nazgul pronounce them free or unfree.

      Revolution, founders, the great experiment- all of it- if there was such a thing- is dead on that day.

      1. Yeah, pretty sad.
        Rioting in the streets would have been appropriate the day any governor said ‘you must stay home’.

    3. That’s a stretch. Clearly, no matter how misguided or overreaching the lockdowns are, they are not an effort to oppress anyone. Quite the opposite: they are an effort to save people’s lives.

      1. So as long as you say you have good intentions, nothing is oppression? Stalin and Hitler never said they were doing what they did just to be evil; they had good intentions and were trying to “save lives” from a greater evil also.

  14. The problem is, you’re looking at this from the wrong direction.

    Please cite the statutes under which the states can abrogate the Constitution of the United States.

    What’s that? They can’t?

    Oh.

    Whose job is it to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?

    And who is in charge of them? For some, their ‘Commander in Chief’?

    Ah.

    And we’re done here.

    1. And what does the Constitution have to say about the states’ rights to pass laws regulating businesses within their borders, curfews, etc.?

  15. He should decree that he forbids them to lift their lockdowns.

    1. lol…dems have become Pavlov’s “reverse psychology” dogs.

  16. “It cannot, however, force individuals and businesses to engage in business in the first place.”

    Yoo misapplies the commerce clause. Its correct application ( in this matter) would be against the states and governors that are imposing the restrictions to shut down business.

    That’s a clear no-no. Trump’s duty to enforce the constitution and by extension the commerce clause thus arms him to re-open any state he wants, whenever.

    Which is not to say that any particular or private business has to operate, just that the state restrictions on commerce must end.

  17. “Trump Can Encourage States to Lift Their COVID-19 Lockdowns, but He Can’t Decree That Outcome”

    Ask Orval Faubus about encouragements and decrees.

  18. I love this. All the breathless stories about how Trump can’t open up the country, and you don’t realize that puts the blame squarely on the (mostly D) governors.

  19. The economy won’t start moving along again until people aren’t afraid to catch this thing anymore. A lot of 50+ people, many younger than that with asthma etc, people with older relatives etc, are still big drivers of the economy. They will stay in and spend less, work from home if they can, until they are not afraid of dying from this thing.

    Trump can tell people it’s o.k., he can put pressure on the governors from his tweeter finger and his TV pulpit. Neither he, nor the governors, can make them leave the house, go to malls and restaurants and spend money. What’s needed is medications and a eventually a vaccine to restore confidence.

    1. Lester224
      April.14.2020 at 10:18 pm
      “The economy won’t start moving along again until people aren’t afraid to catch this thing anymore…”

      No, you cowardly piece of shit, most of us are already ignoring the case of sniffles that terrify scumbags like you.
      Please, please, find some serious disease and die from it soon; the world will thank you.

    2. If state tyrant governors can force people to stay home, the government can surely force people to go out and spend money.

      See Obamacare.

    3. A lot of 50+ people, many younger than that with asthma etc, people with older relatives etc, are still big drivers of the economy.

      Don’t worry about us; we have no problems earning and spending money.

    4. You’re projecting your own bed wetting. If anyone opened a bar, restaurant, or coffee shop in my neighborhood today, it would be packed.

      1. Truth dat….

    5. Maybe, maybe not. But that’s not the point- THAT damage (creating unsubstantiated fear and panic) has been done. But you’ll never know how things recover until you freaking ALLOW businesses to reopen, and figure it out for themselves. If people are truly afraid, the market will find ways to accommodate. Maybe cinemas will offer certain theaters with seats 10 feet apart to help the pants wetters feel better, and charge 50 bucks a ticket for them. Restaurants could come up with separate sections for people who have proof of KungFlu immunity (“smoking or non-smoking” becomes “virus or non-virus?”). Insane amounts of cleaning and disinfecting may become a selling point for restaurants, bars, etc. Who knows? I sure hope none of that comes to pass, because it’s retarded. But at least it is giving the actors in the MARKET a chance to determine what level of risk they really want to take, and how much they are willing to pay/what sacrifices they are willing to make to achieve that level of risk. Rather than MANDATING that everyone treat this the same way (that being the most extreme possible way- full panic lockdown).

  20. It’s unclear whether the state orders might actually be a violation of the interstate commerce clause; if they are, the president can intervene.

    Beyond that, he can, of course, cut all sorts of federal programs to states that remain shut down because, for example, why would states that aren’t actually operating higher educational institutions require grants for higher education?

  21. It was just a few weeks ago that the left was demanding Trump to mandate a nationwide shutdown….But now they’re apoplectic that Trump would assume to have the authority to mandate a nationwide “re-opening” .
    There are few absolutes in the world, and dems being inconsistent is one of them.

  22. If you’re searching for friendship status videos,sad,funny, attitude videos
    Please click here https://www.whatsapp-status-video.xyz

  23. It is very boring for me, talk to me! Write me. Maybe we will make friends. Looking for hook up with a stranger! Ready for any experiments. –==>>> Raed About

    1. Any experiments?

  24. President should stay within the boundaries of his constitutional power. However, I do feel some states will need to be pushed to get back to work due to overly controlling state governors, like mine in KY. Couldn’t the president use the threat of holding federal money for COVID-19 assistance as motivation to get states to open back up?

  25. This format is unforgiving.
    There’s no edit, no delete, and if you hit flag comment by accident, you are unable to tap it again to un-flag…..

  26. Does anyone really believe that it matters whether he can actually FORCE anyone to reopen? It is solely a matter of political pressure. Trump was initially skeptical about lockdowns, but then seemed to buckle under the pressure and at least not say anything actively against them for the past couple weeks. Even acknowledging that they might have to go on until the end of April (not a statement that carries any legal weight, just his advice). As more and more data comes out showing that this is nothing to be concerned about for most places, the weather is getting nicer by the week, and people just start to get sick of this shit, the public and non-full retard governors are going to be receptive to any guidance and/or pressure to end this. Some fraction of states (with Republican governors or vulnerable dems in conservative states) will be more than happy to listen to Trump and declare mission accomplished. After that happens, another tier of states, with somewhat more anti-Trump governors and/or populations, will be pressured to follow suit since their natives will get restless and see other states getting back to normal and start putting on some pressure to do likewise. Plus they know if they hold out too long when other states are back in business, they will start to see outsize economic impacts (as opposed to now where most areas are GENERALLY in the same boat). Then you will have the most anti-Trump states which probably won’t be too far behind, and, particularly the west coast states, might even be ahead of some of the others. Whenever they do it, it will be in some way that makes it clear they are doing it in SPITE of Trump, not because of him. Which is fine; all that matters is they do it.

    I don’t think we would see a major legal showdown over lockdown powers unless some states really do try to do the 6-12-18 mo nonsense. But you would have to be insane to try that.

  27. He was so good at that. I saw him yesterday on morphic tv in a live TV shows

  28. After his tweets emploring liberation, TODAY 04/22 he tells Georgia governor it is too soon to open. Can’t make this stuff up folks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.