• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can a governor close his state's borders to non-reasidents?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My immediate thought would be that it would certainly violate our contitution, but then I began to read more. In normal times the Governor certainly can not close his borders to people coming from other states, but this is not normal times. Justice Warren once wrote the a governor can not close his borders in normal times, but in times of real emergency like floods, epidemic etc. it might be leggal to do so. I would say with this virus spreading and now killing more than a thousand citizens, I would think that this would be such an emergency. What do you think?
 
independentusa said:
My immediate thought would be that it would certainly violate our contitution, but then I began to read more. In normal times the Governor certainly can not close his borders to people coming from other states, but this is not normal times. Justice Warren once wrote the a governor can not close his borders in normal times, but in times of real emergency like floods, epidemic etc. it might be leggal to do so. I would say with this virus spreading and now killing more than a thousand citizens, I would think that this would be such an emergency. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency.
 
independentusa said:
My immediate thought would be that it would certainly violate our contitution, but then I began to read more. In normal times the Governor certainly can not close his borders to people coming from other states, but this is not normal times. Justice Warren once wrote the a governor can not close his borders in normal times, but in times of real emergency like floods, epidemic etc. it might be leggal to do so. I would say with this virus spreading and now killing more than a thousand citizens, I would think that this would be such an emergency. What do you think?
Click to expand...

You don't have to declare it illegal. Just block all the entrance roads with temporary "Construction" projects :lol:
 
independentusa said:
My immediate thought would be that it would certainly violate our contitution, but then I began to read more. In normal times the Governor certainly can not close his borders to people coming from other states, but this is not normal times. Justice Warren once wrote the a governor can not close his borders in normal times, but in times of real emergency like floods, epidemic etc. it might be leggal to do so. I would say with this virus spreading and now killing more than a thousand citizens, I would think that this would be such an emergency. What do you think?
Click to expand...

If a national policy isn't put forward and followed then internal travel restrictions are inevitable. And it will take a looong time to recover from the resentment and finger-pointing incriminations, maybe longer than it will take to recover from the virus.
 
i wouldn't want to be in a state that did that. it would be almost the same level of exposure, only the grocery stores would be stripped clean with no supply chain. after that, it's looting, including your house!

yee haw
 
While I'm not a constitutional expert, I think it is legal, in case of an emergency, and one has been declared, nationwide. A governor could get the National Guard to block all entry points into his state, and declare it a quarantine zone.

Other countries are taking an even harsher approach to this.

Italy has imposed a prohibition of all domestic travel and actually anybody caught on the streets without proving one of the exceptions to their lockdown (such as being a healthcare worker going to work, or going directly from home to a grocery store or pharmacy to get food or medications, and directly back), is being fined (huge fine) and indicted on charges of "aiding an epidemic" which carries a sentence of up to 12 years in prison!!! Italy has indicted 40,000 citizens already, under this law. I kind of think that once it's all said and done and the pandemic is over, Italy will probably dismiss most of these charges except the most egregious ones (for example, a man tested positive and was ordered to stay home, but still left and went out and about having fun in the city and contaminating others; he was caught by police and indicted; this one will probably serve the 12 years especially if it can be proven that someone infected by him, died).

India is going to extremes that I wouldn't support but just look at this: they locked down the entire 1.4 billion people, and the police is out on the streets with cans of yellow die, they are throwing the die at people who don't comply with the lockdown; it is hard to clean and stains skin and clothes, and marks the person for a while with the shame of endangering his/her fellow citizens; up to this, sure, kind of funny. But the issue is, the government said this is just the first phase to see if the population gets it and complies, but if they don't, says the government, the Army will be instructed to shoot on sight anybody who is caught on the streets. I don't know if they will do it... but the simple fact that they announced it, is serious lockdown enforcement, haha.
 
independentusa said:
My immediate thought would be that it would certainly violate our contitution, but then I began to read more. In normal times the Governor certainly can not close his borders to people coming from other states, but this is not normal times. Justice Warren once wrote the a governor can not close his borders in normal times, but in times of real emergency like floods, epidemic etc. it might be leggal to do so. I would say with this virus spreading and now killing more than a thousand citizens, I would think that this would be such an emergency. What do you think?
Click to expand...

No. Travel amongst the states can and should only be regulated by the Federal government.
 
Helix said:
i wouldn't want to be in a state that did that. it would be almost the same level of exposure, only the grocery stores would be stripped clean with no supply chain. after that, it's looting, including your house!

yee haw
Click to expand...

While this thread is asking the question of whether it is legal or not, and not the question of whether it is wise or not, or whether it will have unintended consequences or not, I'd say that to address the points you made, it all depends on how it's enforced, and on predicted exceptions/exemptions. One could design exceptions to trucks bringing in essentials like food, medicines, fuel, etc. Trucks could be escorted by police to the destination, could be unloaded and refueled without the driver leaving the cabin, and then sent back out of state.

The National Guard, Police, State Troopers, and Sheriff Department's LEOs could be deployed on the streets to patrol for looting.

Of course I'm not sure if the LEOs and National Guard would have enough personnel to ensure all this, but I'm just saying, some measure of control could be exercised by these organizatons.

It's pretty much what the Italians are doing (the Army is on the streets, there) and we haven't seen looting or food shortages in Italy.
 
Felis Leo said:
No. Travel amongst the states can and should only be regulated by the Federal government.
Click to expand...

But the Federal Government has declared a nationwide emergency. Doesn't this give special powers to governors?
 
Helix said:
i wouldn't want to be in a state that did that. it would be almost the same level of exposure, only the grocery stores would be stripped clean with no supply chain. after that, it's looting, including your house!

yee haw
Click to expand...

That's what I thought of when I read about states wanting to exclude vehicles coming from N.Y. A fair chunk of imports come through New York harbour and any state that excludes all that material better be self-sufficient.
 
A governor can declare martial law and then post National Guard, which he controls, on his borders.

In the 1800's governors used to declare martial law all the time. In the last hundred years it has been rare. I think the governor of Hawaii declared martial law when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Under martial law, the National Guard can shoot you for breaking laws.

Martial law is on the books so that governors can deal with emergencies.
 
GreatNews2night said:
But the Federal Government has declared a nationwide emergency. Doesn't this give special powers to governors?
Click to expand...

I need to correct myself. Congress has power to regulate all interstate commerce and that which effects interstate commerce, but not necessarily interstate travel. Freedom of Movement among the states is simply considered an integral Constitutional right. A state cannot bar citizens flat out from coming into their state. However, if they are diseased, there may be rules they can apply vis-a-vis any kind of already-existing public safety statutes regarding quarantine.
 
Felis Leo said:
I need to correct myself. Congress has power to regulate all interstate commerce and that which effects interstate commerce, but not necessarily interstate travel. Freedom of Movement among the states is simply considered an integral Constitutional right. A state cannot bar citizens flat out from coming into their state. However, if they are diseased, there may be rules they can apply vis-a-vis any kind of already-existing public safety statutes regarding quarantine.
Click to expand...

OK, but what if a governor declares a state emergency (which is already consistent with the federally declared nationwide emergency) and martial law and deploys the national guard? There must be some provision to make this legal. Think for example of a Chernobyl-like accident with a nuclear plant close to a state border; couldn't the governor prohibit anybody from coming in to a quarantine zone? What if the governor declares the whole state a quarantine zone due to a nasty virus spreading everywhere which is exactly what is happening?
 
GreatNews2night said:
While this thread is asking the question of whether it is legal or not, and not the question of whether it is wise or not, or whether it will have unintended consequences or not, I'd say that to address the points you made, it all depends on how it's enforced, and on predicted exceptions/exemptions. One could design exceptions to trucks bringing in essentials like food, medicines, fuel, etc. Trucks could be escorted by police to the destination, could be unloaded and refueled without the driver leaving the cabin, and then sent back out of state.

The National Guard, Police, State Troopers, and Sheriff Department's LEOs could be deployed on the streets to patrol for looting.

Of course I'm not sure if the LEOs and National Guard would have enough personnel to ensure all this, but I'm just saying, some measure of control could be exercised by these organizatons.

It's pretty much what the Italians are doing (the Army is on the streets, there) and we haven't seen looting or food shortages in Italy.
Click to expand...

Italy isn't a state in the US fighting for food. Many people have military grade private arsenals here.
 
independentusa said:
My immediate thought would be that it would certainly violate our contitution, but then I began to read more. In normal times the Governor certainly can not close his borders to people coming from other states, but this is not normal times. Justice Warren once wrote the a governor can not close his borders in normal times, but in times of real emergency like floods, epidemic etc. it might be leggal to do so. I would say with this virus spreading and now killing more than a thousand citizens, I would think that this would be such an emergency. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Many states have border inspection stations; try driving by one. :lamo
 
I suppose a good case could be made that states can't block borders based on the feds right to regulate interstate commerce. As I mentioned above several states have border inspections stations, which presumably have some regulatory power.
 
Last edited:
swing_voter said:
A governor can declare martial law and then post National Guard, which he controls, on his borders.

In the 1800's governors used to declare martial law all the time. In the last hundred years it has been rare. I think the governor of Hawaii declared martial law when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Under martial law, the National Guard can shoot you for breaking laws.






Martial law is on the books so that governors can deal with emergencies.
Click to expand...


I’ll wager that Rhode Island doesn’t have the manpower........
 
Bullseye said:
Many states have border inspection stations; try driving by one. :lamo
Click to expand...

Is that so? Wow. You get stopped and questioned when going from one state to another?
Why?
 
Bullseye said:
I suppose a good case could be made that states can't block borders based on the feds right to regulate interstate commerce. But several states have border inspections stations, which presumably have some regulatory power.
Click to expand...

What states inspect POV s?
 
Rexedgar said:
What states inspect POV s?
Click to expand...
California, for one. Granted it's pretty cursory under normal conditions. Usually, just a wave-through if you have a CA license, for instance.
 
Bullseye said:
California, for one. Granted it's pretty cursory under normal conditions. Usually, just a wave-through if you have a CA license, for instance.
Click to expand...

I have driven in and out of CA a few times and never was my travel impeded. I ask, a once more, for a link.
 
Helix said:
Italy isn't a state in the US fighting for food. Many people have military grade private arsenals here.
Click to expand...

If commerce, food chain, etc., got preserved by the exceptions I've suggested, I don't see why people would be more likely to loot. There is already a likelihood that people might panic, empty shelves, then loot. I actually started a thread about it, wondering if I should buy a gun, which I did. But my point is, if your reason for the looting is food shortages by trucks being stopped at the state border, we could still allow these trucks to come in, so it's not necessarily a measure that would increase the likelihood of looting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom