A warning from AG Barr of an impending constitutional clash?

If Bozo tells the states to knock off the lockdowns in, say, mid-May and they refuse, what happens?

Maybe this is a hint.

Laura Ingraham Very Concerned Americans Can’t ‘Freely’ Catch And Spread Coronavirus

She interviewed AG Barr.

INGRAHAM: 

Right now, we have no freedom of worship, public worship to go, to gather.  

We have no real freedom of assembly, not even freedom of movement, given what some of the states are doing.  

What can you tell our viewers tonight about what the Justice Department will do after this limited period to ensure that our civil liberties are balanced properly against the need to protect the public?

BARR: 

Well, you know, generally speaking there are occasions where liberties have to be restricted during certain emergencies such as war or, in this case, a potentially devastating pandemic but they have to be balanced.  

Whatever steps you take have to be balanced against the civil liberties of the American people and it cannot be used as an excuse for broad deprivations of liberty.  

So as things proceed, you know we're going to be interested in both what the federal government is imposing and also making sure that that's justified but also what the states do.  

The states have very broad well as you know what we call police powers they have very broad powers that the federal government doesn't have to regulate the lives of their citizens as long as they don't violate the Constitution. 

So we'll be keeping a careful, a careful eye on that.

But she wanted a more explicit commitment, so she continued with specific reference to events in New York.

INGRAHAM: 

Governor Cuomo spoke out this week very forcefully this holy week for Christians, obviously Passover as well for Jewish Americans, about the importance of not gathering together to celebrate and I want you to listen.

VIDEO CLIP OF ANDREW CUOMO: 

Now is not the time for large religious gatherings.  

I mean, we've paid this price already. 

We've learned this lesson. 

You do no one a service by making this worse and infecting more people.

INGRAHAM: 

At what point in time do Americans feel like they're going to be able to have that right back and that the federal government will stand up if local officials continue this all-out prohibition going forward?

Barr assured her that he is “very, very concerned” about such restrictions but he also acknowledged that government has the power to impose them during a time of public emergency, such as this one.

She went on.

INGRAHAM: 

I tweeted out something earlier today, just how, you know, these are inalienable rights. 

It means - and there's a lot of Americans today who are mourning those who've lost their lives in this horrible virus who also say the government doesn't have this right, to take this right, to take our rights away. even when the experts are saying this is a horrible time for us health wise.

Salus publica suprema lex est?

Barr explicitly agrees but she is flatly denying government - the state governments, in this instance - has the authority to limit these First Amendment rights in the interests of public health.

She evidently agrees with the claim of those who insist the lockdown is right now unconstitutional and has been from the start because the individual rights in question cannot be limited for the sake of public health.

[Aside: Napolitano, in quoting the Supremes, ignores that the public health emergency posed by the Coronavirus is not a war, despite propaganda and hyperbole to the contrary, nor is the public effort to deal with the danger. That means the quoted passages are simply not relevant to the problem at hand. And see this.]

Barr is not agreeing to that, at all.

And it seems noteworthy that the Duce himself, who has repeatedly, impatiently, and angrily denounced the lockdown as "worse than the disease", does not seem to share that view, either.

But the AG does seem to be signalling readiness to argue the need has passed and so continuing the lockdown is unconstitutional in court when Trump wants him to.

Interesting how far the parties have switched sides on the need for government imposed social discipline for the sake of public health since the time when Obama had to cope with Ebola and the Republicans were demanding more intrusive methods in the face of O's delicacy.

The Duce clearly wants his Coronavirus economics committee to run the rollback of the lockdown on a timetable of his choice - a choice incorporating their views as well as those of the public health gurus under Fauci and Birx.

Suppose his Coronavirus economics committee starts issuing rollback instructions to commence May 1 and the states tell them and Bozo to pound sand.

Will Barr go to the courts to attack the continuation of the lockdown as unnecessary and so a violation of the Bill of Rights, relying on the incorporation doctrine so often denounced by right wingers eager for a return of the "constitution in exile"?

Will Democratic state governments defend the need for a slower rollback as a legitimate limit to the individual rights in question, all which have always been understood to allow exceptions?

Will Barr insist that the duty of the president to enforce the constitution against the states both means his judgement must prevail over theirs as regards the timing of the rollback and legitimates the authority of his economic committee to control it in as much detail as they say they need?

Cuomo said today New York is developing it's own rollback plan.

Will the governors of surrounding states who followed New York's lead on the lockdown opt again to follow Cuomo's lead on the rollback?

Bozo refused responsibility (blame) for controlling or coordination the public health response to the virus, forcing the states to impose, define, and control the lockdowns.

Now he's getting ready to demand the authority (credit) for removing the lockdowns.

Behavior completely true to his opportunist and narcissist and even crooked presidency.

Cuomo on Pathways Nursing and Rehab lending the state 35 ventilators that have now been returned: "Thank you for your incredible generosity" and "Love conquers all".