(CNN)The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel advisory urging people in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to "refrain from non-essential domestic travel" for the next two weeks.
1 hr 35 min ago President Trump says CDC to issue 'strong Travel Advisory' for NY, NJ and CT From CNN's Gregory Clary President Donald Trump said in a tweet that after consulting with the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, he is asking the CDC to issue "a strong Travel Advisory" to be administered by those governors, in consultation with the federal government. Trump said a "quarantine will not be necessary." This comes after he said earlier Saturday that he's considering mandatory short-term (two-week) quarantine on New York, certain parts of New Jersey and Connecticut. Trump's suggestion of a mandatory quarantine was strongly opposed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who questioned whether it would be legal.
美國的憲法跟行政兩個權力在state quarantine 上是有衝突的。這不是政治問題而是憲政問題。 州政府只有權利isolation,聯邦有權利state quarantine, 而且不需要總統，Secretary of Health 就有權下令， 但是，公民又可以根據憲法第五跟第十四條修正案挑戰聯邦命令，華人網上任何一個公民都可以。 https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation To be sure, the federal government has important quarantine powers. Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to take measures to contain communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. The CDC acts on behalf of the Secretary in these matters. Federal public health and welfare statutes also give the federal government authority to isolate and quarantine persons with certain diseases, based on an executive order issued by President George W. Bush in 2003. The federal government also has a seldom-used power to impose large-scale quarantines. For example, the federal government issued isolation and quarantine orders during the Spanish Influenza pandemic in 1918 and 1919. But under the Constitution, individuals have rights in quarantine and isolation conditions. Under the 5th and 14th Amendment’s rights of Due Process and Equal Protection, public health regulations used to impose such conditions can’t be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable.” There are precedents where courts have ruled that states or local governments didn’t meet a burden of proof to justify a quarantine. For example, in 1900 courts ruled against the city of San Francisco when it tried to inoculate and then quarantine Chinese residents against the bubonic plague when the courts had doubts that plague conditions existed.
文中還提到一點，可以解釋如果你想要檢舉有人違反隔離規定這種想法其實是把美國法律當成中國法律。 原來入境時被要求隔離者，有憲法權利挑戰是否有根據。所以即使你檢舉，政府也不會真的執法。第二段關於密蘇里州跟新罕布夏州群眾違反self quarantine 規定，執法單位不能逮捕任何人就是個例子。 憲法保障的人權，造成在疫情時候執法的困難。 A current example of a federal quarantine order related to the COVID-19 virus on the CDC website outlines many of these principles for people arriving in the United States and “reasonably” suspected by the CDC of exposure to or infection with the coronavirus. Those quarantined have the right to a medical review and “to ask a federal court to review your federal quarantine, including any rights to habeas review.”
On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that people in Missouri and New Hampshire recently violated self-quarantine orders to attend events. Enforcing those orders is problematic, said one expert. “It really is pretty much the honor system,” said Polly Price, a professor of law and global health at Emory University, told the Journal. “Public-health people themselves can’t arrest someone or force them to stay somewhere, and they try to use that as an absolute last resort.”
基本上美國在防疫上的法律太久沒更新，已經跟不上時代了- The Research Service also noted that one trend in common today among the states is the “antiquity” of their quarantine laws, with many statutes between 40 and 100 years old. 有個1824 年的法律限制人還在用，這個法律對執法者有很大限制，如果你違反隔離法，沒事，趕快往外州跑，你州裡的執法權只到州界： the power to take quarantine measures is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. In 1824, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden drew a clear line between the federal government and the state governments when it came to regulating activities within and between states. Marshall’s reasoning set the precedent that police powers are reserved to states for activities within their borders (with some exceptions). 看完這篇我的感想是，全人類要覺得幸運，這個病毒開始傳染是在人權的重要性低於公權的國家。 如果一開始是由美國開始傳染，以目前老舊的防疫法律，這個擴散只可能更快更遠。 美國的確很偉大，對人權的尊重超過一切，但是可以預見的是，這次疫情之後，美國立法單位會根據這次經驗overhaul 整個防疫的法令。
Cuomo昨天采访的时候说如果真有lock down nyc。华尔街和NYSE就不得不停了，股票就一落千丈了，Trump就退却了。 amoy 发表于 3/29/2020 9:51:06 AM
911股市也关了好几天了，还不是过来了， 又不是没有过。
Stock exchanges closed between September 10, 2001 and September 17, 2001. After the initial panic, the DJIA quickly rose for only a slight drop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_September_11_attacks
CDC对这三州的Travel Advisory出来了，跟没说一样!! (CNN) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel advisoryurging people in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to "refrain from non-essential domestic travel" for the next two weeks. meetmylove2015 发表于 3/28/2020 8:48:00 PM
(CNN)The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel advisory urging people in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to "refrain from non-essential domestic travel" for the next two weeks.
希望最后纽约那个反对的州长最后不被钉在耻辱柱上
在美国要封城没那么容易，纽约市还行，NJ CT根本封不来。
如果cdc发do not travel, 那纽约享受和北朝鲜及伊朗人一样的待遇？
真是你吗？好久不见你了 你在哪儿呢西雅图吗
我也觉得在美国封城封州会引起更多问题！
其实很害怕的美国防疫的还有中国护照在手的，咬咬牙学学黎女士拖家带口回中国吧！机票再贵也不如命贵……
牛肉哪里去了 微信也不回
飞机上被传染的几率只会更大吧
老川如果放弃了之前的说法，这个mm估计更失望了
。。。我觉得不好
不明白为啥州长不愿意，疫情控制住对他也有好处
真是什么都有话说。不咨询别人又要说独断，咨询别人也有事，要是真听你们这些偏执深井冰的话就全美等死吧
武汉人也不愿意一个道理吧
你如果天天关注新闻，还得出这个结论，只能说你眼瞎脑残
封了东岸这几个州别处就安全了？那西海岸呢？每个州各封各的？
他釘不釘沒人在乎，現在就是pray不要讓紐約把聯邦資源都吸進黑洞，別的州沒有資源可用
cnn上出来了。
百思不得其解同样。照理那是其它国家啊都不能ban，咋自己的公民能ban呢？而且当初要是把这几个ban了，至于今天嘛！
简直了，那你肯定不是武汉人？
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation
To be sure, the federal government has important quarantine powers. Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to take measures to contain communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. The CDC acts on behalf of the Secretary in these matters. Federal public health and welfare statutes also give the federal government authority to isolate and quarantine persons with certain diseases, based on an executive order issued by President George W. Bush in 2003. The federal government also has a seldom-used power to impose large-scale quarantines. For example, the federal government issued isolation and quarantine orders during the Spanish Influenza pandemic in 1918 and 1919. But under the Constitution, individuals have rights in quarantine and isolation conditions. Under the 5th and 14th Amendment’s rights of Due Process and Equal Protection, public health regulations used to impose such conditions can’t be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable.” There are precedents where courts have ruled that states or local governments didn’t meet a burden of proof to justify a quarantine. For example, in 1900 courts ruled against the city of San Francisco when it tried to inoculate and then quarantine Chinese residents against the bubonic plague when the courts had doubts that plague conditions existed.
On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that people in Missouri and New Hampshire recently violated self-quarantine orders to attend events. Enforcing those orders is problematic, said one expert. “It really is pretty much the honor system,” said Polly Price, a professor of law and global health at Emory University, told the Journal. “Public-health people themselves can’t arrest someone or force them to stay somewhere, and they try to use that as an absolute last resort.”
有個1824 年的法律限制人還在用，這個法律對執法者有很大限制，如果你違反隔離法，沒事，趕快往外州跑，你州裡的執法權只到州界：
the power to take quarantine measures is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. In 1824, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden drew a clear line between the federal government and the state governments when it came to regulating activities within and between states. Marshall’s reasoning set the precedent that police powers are reserved to states for activities within their borders (with some exceptions).
看完這篇我的感想是，全人類要覺得幸運，這個病毒開始傳染是在人權的重要性低於公權的國家。 如果一開始是由美國開始傳染，以目前老舊的防疫法律，這個擴散只可能更快更遠。 美國的確很偉大，對人權的尊重超過一切，但是可以預見的是，這次疫情之後，美國立法單位會根據這次經驗overhaul 整個防疫的法令。
每天死两百，出的比进的快，不下降才怪了
謝謝。我想要強調的是，在美國這樣尊重人權的國家，人民也要知道自己的人權是怎麼來的，要有common sense. 爭論左右，聯邦還是州的責任，都不如問自己你能為國家做什麼？ 新冠是不能輕忽的一種瘟疫。 住院率可以到15%+， 流感是0.0527%，死亡率直逼西班牙流感，是季節流感的4-20倍以上，個人在人權獲得保障的同時，更要注意隔離自己，盡量降低被傳染也不要傳染別人的機率。
這是人權國家，這種時候不是說為什麼別人不遵守規定，為什麼哪個總統，哪個州長哪個黨做什麼或是不做什麼。這個國家建國之初，就是要國民從自己做起，維護自己跟尊重別人的權利，而不是等著政府為你做什麼。華人移民的教育水準平均是高於美國其他人種的，這時候更應該知道自己該做什麼，不該做什麼。為什麼來了這裡，愛上這個國家（for some) , 一個原因不就是，我自己的事，我作主！
哪里说的？出处哪里？没有出处不能乱编。
问题是大家都忽略一点，都是人类之间互相争互相谈条件，但是最大的谈判方是病毒，病毒觉得被忽略很愤怒
不管什么措施都是要最后经过病毒同意的，不论是复工还是封城还是戴口罩
如果NYSE的交易员中招了，到时候也不能正常运转了
911股市也关了好几天了，还不是过来了， 又不是没有过。
Stock exchanges closed between September 10, 2001 and September 17, 2001. After the initial panic, the DJIA quickly rose for only a slight drop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_September_11_attacks
解释得很好，谢谢
他又不是Dr Fauci的那种专家，不咨询业内人士难道自己拍脑袋决策？