Bill Barr threatens legal action to force states to reopen: 'We have to give businesses more freedom

[Soph0571]

to operate’

Attorney General William Barr will consider legal action to force governors to ease social distancing requirements for their states.

President Donald Trump’s attorney general told talk radio host Hugh Hewitt that extraordinary measures to fight the spread of coronavirus were justified, but Barr argued that at some point they infringed on constitutional rights, reported Bloomberg.

“We have to give businesses more freedom to operate in a way that’s reasonably safe,” Barr said. “To the extent that governors don’t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce — our common market that we have here — then we’ll have to address that.”

[link:https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/bill-barr-threatens-legal-action-to-force-states-to-reopen-we-have-to-give-businesses-more-freedom-to-operate/|]

Can he do that? Doesn't the constitution get in the way?

[BlueJac]

1. Ass wipe Barr threaten governors...

Can he?

[stopbush]

2. We have a lawless POTUS and AG.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. Since when did he or anyone in this administration care about the Constitution?

[Walleye]

4. He's talking out of trump's ass

[MyOwnPeace]

14. Oh, you mean.......

from his "Home Office?"

[Walleye]

15. 😗🤣

[FarPoint]

5. Just our reliable Bully Sidekick of the dictator in chief...

This is another of a million diversion piviots we have being tossed out by the WH....Oh yes..we have a Constitution with a 10th Amendment..

[SoonerPride]

6. Just try that, fuckstick. Bring it on.

[SheltieLover]

7. The Constitution hasn't prevented them from doing anything else! 🤬

So, is it all about states rights or a strong fed government? Amazing the way they want their cake & to eat it too.

Must cause some extreme cognitive dissonance on some subconscious level all this hypocracy & manipulating.

But, then, their motto seems to be any means to our greedy, racist ends.

[Windy City Charlie]

8. What are they going to do next?

Ok, and after that, say the general population chooses not to go out and support the businesses that have re-opened to keep from getting infected with the virus. What are they going to do? Force people to go out and contribute to the economy or else? "If people don't get out and start supporting these businesses, we may have to address that."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. They might be able to bully some governors into moving faster than they otherwise would

but "re-opening the economy", flooding churches and beaches, etc. ain't happening if we the people choose not to get back out there and start doing stuff until *we* feel safe.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. "We have to give business more freedom to kill people for money."

[Grins]

10. But...but...but....."States's rights"?

Republicans sure are strange...

[The Magistrate]

11. Two Possible Lines Of Approach, Ma'am

Restrictions on gatherings which include church attendance may be attacked as interfering with rights to religious freedom. Even if, say, simply all gatherings in excess of dozen are barred, some judges may prove synpathetic to the argument.

The other is a claim that state actions restricting business operations interfere with interstate commerce, and so come under the 'commerce clause' of the Constitution, which has since the New Deal been interpreted by the courts to give Congress, and Federal agencies Congress delegates power to, authority over just about all business. Courts might well agree, and if courts to do not, reactionaries still seeking to roll back Federal authority to what it was a hundred years ago might find such rulings precedents for further assault on what most of us take for granted about the prerogatives of the Federal government.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[Grins]

12. Reminds me of Stalin's quip: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

How are you going to enforce it, Willie?

On a side note I thought that should have been the attitude taken by Wisconsin’s Governor when Supreme Court told him he HAD to have elections the next day. During a pandemic. He should have defied that order.

“Whaddaya’ gonna’ do if I don’t, SCOTUS...?”

[MyOwnPeace]

13. "Doesn't the constitution get in the way?"

Apparently not to these ignorant, selfish, thieving sons-of-bitches!

[lark]

16. With this thief of the office, SCOTUS and Senate - there is no constitution, just rw wet dreams.

So far SCOTUS has shown no limit on how low they will go, but I keep hoping they have a floor on treachery. There may or may not be one. Of course this could just be total BS as well, who can tell with this killer klown krewe.

[smirkymonkey]

18. Hah! Do they really think they can force people to go out and spend money?

What a bunch of idiots! They can declare anything they want. But people aren't as stupid as they might want to believe. At least not a majority of us. We aren't going to go back out and spend in droves no matter what they say. Their idiotic base might do it, but that is not going to restore the economy and most of those people will be dead in a few months.

The liberals who are taking this seriously, will continue to take it seriously and will stay inside until it is clear that the danger has passed or there is a vaccine.

[JenniferJuniper]

19. What if they reopened all the businesses,

and nobody came?

[smirkymonkey]

22. Yes. Exactly.

Nobody will come. We are not all that stupid and suicidal. Let them go ahead and do it. See where it gets them.

[bdamomma]

21. The economy means more to them

than people's lives, they have such disdain and contempt for the American people, they are proving it everyday when people are dying. Screw the tRump cult, they will go down, there are more of us than them.

We have a impeached tyrant who needs to be tarred and feathered.

[uponit7771]

29. +1, Only if you gave a LOT of it to them. In China they're literally giving away 300,000 million

... total in "vouchers" to go shopping in specific places.

The Chinese folk got sense, they know what's up.

AP didn't describe how the voucher program is working but if it was working well I'd think they'd outline how successful it was.

[Sanity Claws]

20. But what if they open and nobody came?

I think in some places and for some types of businesses, people won't show up to shop or do other business. The owners will find out that they were better off if they remained shut.

At first, there might be a rush for certain businesses, like hair salons, but the business will die down quickly. Oops. That has a double meaning.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. There are some legitimate Constitutional conflicts raised by COVID restrictions

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and movement/travel.

States do have the right to regulate safety and commerce, as long as it doesn’t infringe on Constitutional rights. While I support the measures taken by governors to flatten the curve, I expect there will be some cases that will need to be sorted out in court.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

24. Good luck with that, asshole.

You’d have better luck applying “supply sanctions” on the states, and that’s probably what you tyrants have planned by repeatedly seizing needed supplies.

[eleny]

25. .

..... .....

[BComplex]

26. The employees of those businesses would be going out to eat more on their way home, and

shopping more for personal upkeep if they were working, plus they'd be buying more gas to get to and from work, and sending their kids to daycare. So it would expand the economy some. But the price in deaths and medical care would skyrocket.

[pansypoo53219]

27. who wants to die for crapitalism?!? WEEEEeeeeee!

[rockfordfile]

28. The corrupt AG has no power to do anything like that