I am always amazed that Americans, especially our elected leaders, fail to understand how Americans think.
This contradicts the first argument you made. Executive order or law, if someone feels entitled to live as they deem worthy, without regards to public health, not even an order from God himself will compel them to follow orders.
Yes, the statements are contradictory. First, executive orders are important and necessary in emergencies, because government is not nimble. It is, by nature and design, cumbersome. Executive orders cut through that. That having been said, executive orders of this nature need to be backed up by legislative action, Period. This crisis has been going on at least 4 months, and is likely to continue to go on. Americans will more readily accept the results of the legislative process than the commands of one person issuing executive orders.
Second: sunset provisions are good if they're not time based. Mandating a mask for 30 days and lifting the mandate after won't help. Cases will skyrocket and unless there's a trigger to snap it back into place, it's useless.
I don't disagree.
But, we also need to understand the nature of this pandemic. Second, third, fourth, etc. waves are to be expected until we reach the hallowed point of herd immunity or an effective vaccine is developed and distributed in suitable quantities.
I was listening to a Podcast about the development of the Polio vaccine, and didn't not realize that Polio had a "season", so to speak. It came back every summer because people tended to congregate more in the summer. So, we have been here before.
The sunset provisions need to be tied to realistic benchmarks, not just time.
hird: even in single party states there's disagreement on how to pass legislation for this (and that's not even counting divided government states). Do you think AL's legislature will allow Ivey to pass a mandate willingly? Do you think MI's legislature will allow Whitmer to do it? Heck...look at WI and how the legislature fought all the way up to the courts to prevent Evers from enacting such a mandate. You're naive if you think all legislatures are willing to do it.
You're not wrong there. But, I also have faith in our democratic process, in that democracies eventually do the right thing. It may take a while, but it happens. I'm a little idealistic in that way. Sue me.
Funny. Many localities in GA tried doing this, and Kemp passed an ordinance overruling them. And then there are the cases where localities are hotspots but they don't want to do a thing.
True, but do you think a national mandate issued by this administration would do any better? The more local the process, the better it will be received.
it should be the federal level that has a final say.
Again, it's counter to how people think. They don't like to be told by one person...and that's what a mandate would be, an executive order by the president...or some directive from an executive administration, not vetted by the legislative process, what to do. At this stage, legislatures should be handling these things, not executives.
Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade. In the words of Forrest Gump: "stupid is as stupid does". If someone doesn't want to wear a mask without any reason other than "I don't want to", then they're idiots: putting themselves and others in harm's way.
So, you'd rather be right than effective? If I started my conversation with you with "Hey, you idiot..." will you listen to anything I have to say to you? Do I even have a small chance of swaying your opinion? Of course not.
When I was teaching my daughter how to drive, I asked her if she would rather be "right and dead" or yield the right-of-way to someone who was wrong and live to drive again.
I don't really see any difference.