Overview
Feedback
50 / 100
50 %
This activity involved preparing an outline for the final paper instead of addressing the DB topic.
You may have until next Tuesday, 09/30, to submit the appropriate work. Let me know when you have done so.
My current outline:
Thesis
The state of Alabama's action by the Governor to impose a 24-hour curfew and the deployment of the National Guard during the Disease X outbreak was constitutionally valid and justified on the police power of the state and can be supported by public health emergency precedent. But the scope of the powers, especially that of ordering the arrests granted to the National Guard, was of grave concern to civil liberties under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and thus the necessity of statutory protection against it was evident.
I. Introduction
- A little bit of history on Disease X: Disease X has started in Asia, has been proven to have a high death rate, and has spread quickly to other cities throughout America, such as Birmingham.
- Facts in Alabama: the police force eroded, terror of anarchy reminiscent of New York/Los Angeles, the Governor has issued an emergency declaration.
- Purpose of the paper: To examine the constitutionality and proportionality of the actions of the Governor in the U.S. constitutional law.
- Introduction: Public Safety vs Constitutional Right will be discussed with the help of case laws.
II. Legal Basis for State Actions
- State Police Powers (Tenth Amendment): Allows states to protect health, safety, and welfare during emergencies.
- Public Health Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) upheld emergency health measures under a “reasonableness” standard.
- National Guard Authority: Under state command, exempt from Posse Comitatus limits.
III. Constitutional Concerns
- First Amendment: Curfew limits assembly; must balance necessity with rights.
- Fourteenth Amendment: Prevents arbitrary or overly broad state action.
- Fourth Amendment: Arrests need probable cause; risk of unlawful seizures.
- Military vs. Civil Authority: Ex parte Milligan warns against replacing civilian law enforcement when courts function.
- Risk of Precedent: Broad emergency powers can be abused in future crises.
IV. Balancing Public Safety and Civil Liberties
- Supporting Necessity: Likely reduced deaths; targeted to a specific area and emergency.
- Counterarguments: No clear end date or review; risk of overreach in giving military arrest powers.
V. Conclusion and Recommendations
- Summary: Likely constitutional under Jacobson, but tests limits on the military’s domestic role.
- Recommendations: Create clear emergency laws, require regular reviews, and set Guard enforcement guidelines.