Q&A – Florida’s Win Vs the CDC Is Among The Most Consequential - Part 2

Photo: AFP

Q&A Of The Day – Florida’s Win Against the CDC Is Among The Most Consequential - Part 2

Bottom Line: The CDC retains its authority to issue edicts from the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Until Florida’s suit challenging the “no sail” order, the CDC never had its authority under it legally challenged. As I mentioned last week, the CDC isn’t granted authority to do anything unless one of two conditions occur: If local authorities invite them to do so, or under the authority outlined in the Insurrection Act in the event of a total breakdown of law and order. Neither of which occurred. The CDC’s abuse of power is blatant, which is why Governor DeSantis and AG Ashley Moody were so confident going into this case. But the bigger picture here is much bigger than even the hugely significant cruise industry in Florida. 

Every mandate the CDC issues, right down to rabid dogs, is unconstitutional. As I mentioned on Thursday, it’s critical the state of Florida win this case for reasons far wider reaching than the cruise industry. And frankly it’s bigger than the CDC abusing power. How many other federal agencies have or could take similar unconstitutional steps to attempt to control our lives? Notably the Justice Department under Merrick Garland were the one’s fighting this battle against Florida on behalf of the CDC. When the US Justice Department is literally fighting an unconstitutional battle for unelected scientists to set an enforce policy as they see fit, the implications for our freedom were and are many that extend well beyond the CDC and the cruise industry. 

Florida’s win was for everyone’s Constitutional rights and freedom. Legal precedent is extremely important. The state’s case against the CDC is a landmark case because there had been no prior legal precedent. Should the CDC attempt to continue to abuse its power in other instances, the legal path will be easier for those seeking relief. Hopefully, the CDC takes a step back, realizes their role as an adviser rather than policy setter and its mute. Ditto any other unelected body which would be tempted to do the same. 

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content