Colorado Marching Band Cancelled

[rpbobcat]

22 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

We just had this discussion a few days ago, remember?

1. Presidents have exceeded their powers in national emergencies before, and they mostly get forgiven after the fact.

2. Even setting that aside, there are plenty of entirely constitutional actions that presidents can take. For example, a president could invoke the Defense Production Act to order companies to produce things like masks or respirators or needles (we're going to need a whole bunch of that last item next year if there's a vaccine) instead of the products they usually make. (The companies do get paid for doing this, of course.) And once the public knows the president is requiring companies to make masks, then they would probably take masks more seriously. That's just one of many powers a president has in a situation like this.

3. But even setting that aside, a president has enormous powers of influence. Teddy Roosevelt referred to the presidency as the "bully pulpit" for that reason. If a president were to say: "This situation is dire and one of the biggest challenges this nation has faced, so I want all the states to impose a six-week lockdown, and I want states to require everyone to wear a mask in public, and I want Congress to pass an enormous relief package to support people and companies during that period," it would happen.

1.Some Presidents have exceeded their powers.

   Others have tried and weren't able to.

   In my opinion,given the current political environment,if the President attempted anything the other side

   felt even remotely exceeded his Constitutional Authority,they'd be in court.

2.The President did use the Defense Production Act to get companies to make ventilators and masks.

That's got nothing to do with  State's rights.

 3.Do you really believe if the President said "the situation . . .",  people on the other side of the aisle

would agree and go along with it ?

I mean we're talking the same people who did all kinds of name calling after the Chinese travel ban

earlier this year. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by rpbobcat

[N.E. Brigand]

21 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

3. But even setting that aside, a president has enormous powers of influence. Teddy Roosevelt referred to the presidency as the "bully pulpit" for that reason.

Speaking of historical presidencies, a blogger whose work I follow has been slowly reading and reviewing the 42 installments in the American Presidents series of biographies edited by Arthur Schlesinger and Sean Wilentz, and having just finished, he posted this summary page, ranking the books from best to worst. Those folks with a historical bent may find that page to be a useful reading guide. (He puts the Teddy Roosevelt biography at the bottom of the list, unfortunately.)

Edited July 17, 2020 by N.E. Brigand

[N.E. Brigand]

4 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

1.Some Presidents have exceeded their powers. Others have tried and weren't able to. In my opinion, given the current political environment, if the President attempted anything the other side felt even remotely exceeded his Constitutional Authority, they'd be in court.

We just can't get into this in more detail here, which is why I've been referring to "a president" in the abstract, so I'll just say I strongly disagree.

Edited July 17, 2020 by N.E. Brigand

[Incognito365]

On 7/15/2020 at 4:34 PM, skevinp said:

A little south of there, I suspect the Contest of Champions will be if it hasn’t been already.  That was such a hallowed thing to me growing up.  It’s sad that kids won’t get the experience.  

I competed there as well, in the early 2000s. No word yet. So far bands in my area still have Murfreesboro and MidStates Band Association. I think the travel ban for Ohio will force MSBA to cancel. Murfreesboro depends on whether MTSU continues with in class classes or not. Any word on the US Band circuits? We had thought to look into the Southern States Championships incase our SMBC was cancelled.

[cixelsyd]

On 7/15/2020 at 3:31 PM, N.E. Brigand said:

A two-month national lockdown, one nearly as tough as what Italy eventually did (and we never did here), starting on March 15 probably would have done it, especially if we used that time well and then reopened smartly and ready to test, trace, and isolate on a massive scale.

 

On 7/15/2020 at 6:47 PM, N.E. Brigand said:

If anything, people were too skeptical about how effective lockdowns, social distancing, and masks could be. I count myself among this group. Like too few people, I didn't realize that it was possible to achieve what New Zealand and Taiwan managed. So what I argued for was that at the very least, we needed to "bend the curve" just to keep hospital capacity from being overwhelmed. Lots of people argued that what I was calling for was too much. It turns out it was too little.

 

3 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

If a president were to say: "This situation is dire and one of the biggest challenges this nation has faced, so I want all the states to impose a six-week lockdown, and I want states to require everyone to wear a mask in public, and I want Congress to pass an enormous relief package to support people and companies during that period," it would happen.

Okay, that makes three times you have put forth the idea of a national lockdown, without voicing your own personal support.  Oh, wait - here:

On 7/15/2020 at 6:07 PM, N.E. Brigand said:

I said we needed a "national lockdown".

So you do believe that is what we need.

Help me out here, because I am not clear on what, precisely, a "national lockdown" entails.  I am quite sure, though, that for it to have any chance of being effective, it would have to include the following three prerequisites:

1.  If the situation is that dire to demand a lockdown of 6 to 8 weeks, then pandemic response must take priority.  Protests, riots, autonomous zones, etc., must be stopped in the name of safety first.  We cannot have people assembling in large groups in violation of social distancing guidelines.  Whatever degree of force is necessary to bring those hazardous behaviors to an immediate and lasting stop would have to be applied.

2.  Clearly, we have an issue with people not following social distancing guidance, particularly proper mask usage.  We could lock down forever, and fail to even slow the spread if we behave like what I am seeing currently.  Social distancing will have to be patrolled, and law enforcement will have to be involved (and obeyed).  That means the police will need to be fully funded, and then some, to execute this vital role.

3.  A lockdown, of course, involves keeping people from freely coming in and out of the locked down area.  As you have been so conscientious to point out, we never really did completely stop international travel from virus-laden countries.  We would have to rectify that shortcoming this time.  Our biggest shortcoming in that department is at our southern national border.  People have been entering the USA illegally over that border for many years.  We have tried everything short of building a wall to get a handle on that, but nothing has worked.  We will need to finish that wall, right away, and enforce the border.  (We will even have to pause legal immigration for at least the time period of the lockdown.)

So you agree so far, right?

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, cixelsyd said:

Help me out here, because I am not clear on what, precisely, a "national lockdown" entails.  I am quite sure, though, that for it to have any chance of being effective, it would have to include the following three prerequisites:

1.  If the situation is that dire to demand a lockdown of 6 to 8 weeks, then pandemic response must take priority.  Protests, riots, autonomous zones, etc., must be stopped in the name of safety first.  We cannot have people assembling in large groups in violation of social distancing guidelines.  Whatever degree of force is necessary to bring those hazardous behaviors to an immediate and lasting stop would have to be applied.

2.  Clearly, we have an issue with people not following social distancing guidance, particularly proper mask usage.  We could lock down forever, and fail to even slow the spread if we behave like what I am seeing currently.  Social distancing will have to be patrolled, and law enforcement will have to be involved (and obeyed).  That means the police will need to be fully funded, and then some, to execute this vital role.

3.  A lockdown, of course, involves keeping people from freely coming in and out of the locked down area.  As you have been so conscientious to point out, we never really did completely stop international travel from virus-laden countries.  We would have to rectify that shortcoming this time.  Our biggest shortcoming in that department is at our southern national border.  People have been entering the USA illegally over that border for many years.  We have tried everything short of building a wall to get a handle on that, but nothing has worked.  We will need to finish that wall, right away, and enforce the border.  (We will even have to pause legal immigration for at least the time period of the lockdown.)

So you agree so far, right?

"Don't throw me into the briar patch!"

Broadly speaking:

1. Yes.

2. Fine.

3. OK.

Albeit with some caveats and exceptions, which I might address later.

[MikeD]

11 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

I'm a bit of a history buff.

When they were drafting the Constitution,one of the biggest concerns states had was a too powerful Federal Government taking away states' rights.

Under the Constitution,the Federal Government's powers over states  are actually quite limited.

They've "stretched" their powers over the years,but its still limited.

When this thing first started ,there were calls for the President to impose

a national lock down.

It was pointed out that,under the Constitution, he can't.

Its up to each state.

Same with states reopening or requiring masks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree. We need to remember that when the country was  being formed, it was difficult to get ALL of the states to agree to just about anything, especially giving up power. Many things were done out of necessity as a compromise to get reluctant states on board with even forming a single country at all. The end of the Revolutionary War left us with individual states and a vacuum at the national level.

[MikeD]

Preemptive mod hat here...

Be careful in posting about the do's and don't of the political side of things. It's been nicely vague so far, but bear in mind the rules of DCP. 

 

 

[skevinp]

5 hours ago, E3D said:

I do wear a mask. When I made the statement "I'm not out in groups large enough to worry about it" means I am wearing a mask and if a group of people were around that didn't then I would move on. 

Interesting how people who have been smeared for not caring about people turn out to be taking careful precautions.  Makes me wonder how careful the people doing the smearing are being.  Hopefully as careful.  Be safe everyone.  

[Terri Schehr]

37 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Interesting how people who have been smeared for not caring about people turn out to be taking careful precautions.  Makes me wonder how careful the people doing the smearing are being.  Hopefully as careful.  Be safe everyone.  

I was super careful before this.  Like I said on another thread, the mask is the only thing added to the mix for me.  And I wear it correctly, too.  I’m about done with these under the nose people.  The stink eye in their direction is not that effective with a mask.