 |
| Mayor London Breed (top left) seen at the jazz club. |
The behavior demonstrated by London Breed is a common scenario where a politician goes against their own policy in their private life. Hypocrisy is frustrating, but inevitable. However, the fact that Breed risked being caught breaking her own city's mask mandates begs the question: what is the constitutionality of mask mandates and how are federal mask mandates, state mask mandates, and local mask mandates interconnected? Because there is not one political body deciding the mask mandate (federalism is the idea that government is a combination of state and national governments), there are a lot of factors at play when it comes to the enforcement of mask mandates. Firstly, a "mandate" is usually defined as a requirement that orders state and local governments to expand or implement services. If those services are not properly implemented, the national government will somehow penalize the state or locality or just withhold the grant money. Although only the national government can enact official mandates, grant money and all, local school districts have created mask mandates to ensure that students wear masks in school.
On the other side of the country, Florida governor Ron DeSantis recently made an executive order to ban all school districts from enforcing mask mandates with the threat of withholding state funds. He claimed that school mask mandates went against the state's constitution that gave parents the right to make healthcare decisions for their children. DeSantis' reference to the state constitution is a reminder of the issues that the Articles of Confederation caused in the 1780s. Because the AOC established a weak national government, many states resorted to their state constitutions to enact legislation. State power was at an all time high, and limitations on the central government (no strong military) meant that they could not effectively respond to middle class uprisings. The establishment of a loose collection of sovereign states was criticized, and resulted in the popularization of Federalism. In short, the U.S. would not have survived well as a loose confederation of sovereignties given that it would lead to recessions from the country. Moreover, during the pandemic, a lack of a strong central government meant that states would take health matters into their own hands. This would most likely have led to many more deaths as states would not have had as much influence from the national government to extend mask mandates and implement stay at home orders.
 |
Seven day avg. of new Covid-19 cases in S.F. county, according to the San Francisco Department of Public Health |
So, which mask mandate, federal, state, or local, takes precedence over the other two? Ultimately, the state mandate takes precedence over the other two, but local mask mandates seem to be the most obeyed. Although there is no federal law regarding mask mandates, the executive branch has the power to prevent the introduction and transmission of disease from foreign countries into the states or between states. Also, via the Commerce Clause, the national government can affect mask mandates by regulating interstate business. Although both public health laws and the Commerce Laws enable the national government to create mask mandates, national mask mandates have not applied well to the states. The tenth amendment's "anti-commandeering provision" prevents the federal government from forcing state officers to enforce federal commands. Although the tenth amendment does not give states powers superior to that of the national government for anything not written in the constitution, "all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"(10th amendment of the Constitution). Also, the case McCulloch vs. Maryland established the superiority of the national governments over state governments overall. All in all, the "anti-commandeering provision" proves that the state mask mandates take precedence over the federal mandates. Although people have argued that state mask mandates violate the First Amendment, especially with regard to religious activities, most backlash has been unsupported by federal courts and the general public. And masks are in fact constitutional as any mandate can be implemented by local governments they are in the best interest of the public. With local school districts, there is growing support that they can implement their own mask mandates against state executive order if the order violates people's "public safety guarantees."
The constitutionality of mask mandates, as described by The Washington Post
The battle between federal, state, and local governments over Covid-19 mask mandates seems to be never-ending because of the many nuances to state and federal constitutions. Different laws seem to be contradicting, and there are strong arguments to be made for each tier of government to have power over the other two with regard to Covid-19. Although it is arguable which tier of government's mask mandates takes precedence, what isn't arguable is that local mask mandates are the most obeyed. The simple reason is that people tend to follow rules that apply to their local community because those rules are designed specifically for their demographic, culture, and population. Moreover, one is more likely to follow a mask mandate if it is articulated and enforced by their own schoolteachers who see them seven hours a day as opposed to a distant group of higher-ups in Washington D.C. The reason federal mask mandates are so difficult to enforce is that law enforcement would literally have to scope out every single person not wearing a mask (or wearing a mask improperly) when inside and not eating. Given the scope of the country and breadth of people not obeying mask mandates exactly as they are detailed, effectively enforcing federal mask mandates would be a gargantuan task. London Breed's behavior is a unique situation where someone who supported their own city's mask mandate blatantly disregards it to "feel the spirit." It is not proof that local mask mandates are wholly ineffective, but is a reminder that politicians are just as human and flawed as any other American citizen.
Analysis Questions:
1) In general, is it important that politicians personally follow the legislation that they help pass or support in the public eye? What message is sent when Mayor Breed defies her own city's mask mandate?
2) If you could decide which tier of government has superiority over the other with regard to Covid-19 related mandates and legislation, which would you choose? (example: states first, national gov. second, localities third, because...)
3) What is the relationship between Federalism and Covid-19? I know hypotheticals are dangerous, but would the country have dealt with the pandemic better if the governmental system was closer to dual federalism rather than cooperative federalism?
**careful
4) Are mask mandates constitutional? Regardless, are they more of a formality at this point given most people's access to vaccines or are they still imperative tools to stopping the spread of Covid-19? GO!
Links:
Photos/Videos:
Photo 1: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/Screen-Shot-2021-09-17-at-1.04.01-PM.jpg?quality=90&strip=all
Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H03Ds3GNaBo
Statistic: https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/Bay-Area-COVID-delta-mask-mandate-work-when-county-16413589.php
Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTUhwkp37p0
Factual News Reports:
(1) https://nypost.com/2021/09/18/san-francisco-mayor-london-breed-defiant-after-dancing-maskless/
(2) https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Mayor-London-Breed-criticized-by-health-experts-16468495.php
(3) https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-san-francisco-san-francisco-bay-ebf8dc7e45668a3297454cd64063d871
(4) https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitutional-issues-related-to-covid-19-mask-mandates
Analysis Article:
https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/Bay-Area-COVID-delta-mask-mandate-work-when-county-16413589.php
References:
San Francisco Department of Public Health: FAQs for Covid-19 Health Order C19-07y https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/coronavirus-faq.asp
13 comments:
I think that legislators should follow the laws they put into place in order to strengthen the integrity of their policies. While I do understand London Breed's argument that she isn't going to put on her mask and take it off every time she needs to eat or drink (I do this as well when I eat)I think the argument is weakened substantially by how: 1. she had her mask off when she was dancing, clearly not going on break to eat or drink, and 2. that her first argument instead was that those artists hadn't performed in years which am pretty sure doesn't warrant taking your mask off (and she is clearly done eating as seen in the photo, and again yes she does highlight how everyone else isn't wearing a mask but I think as mayor she is held to a higher degree). As for which part of the government I think that ideally Covid-19 Policy should be handled by state governments to adjust for the differing population densities. However, unfortunately like you wrote that states like Florida have chosen to disregard masks I think in our current situation the federal government needs to step in to actually enforce a degree of security.
Pascal, thanks for your reflection on Breed's behavior at the club. Masks are very annoying, but not wearing one while dancing is a clear disregard of the policy that she fully embraced. Also, yes, mentioning how the artists haven't performed in years is a very strange response to a question about not wearing a mask. I had a hard time trying to figure out what she meant by that, but ultimately it just seems like she was trying to avoid answering the question directly. The reality of being a very influential and renowned politician is that you are criticized for everything you do... but abiding by your own city's policy doesn't seem like too much to ask- when you become a mayor you are signing up to be a good representative of your city and it's legislation. And Covid-19 policy will always be a battle between the three main tiers of government that I mentioned, but I agree that the federal government should get involved to maintain public health and safety.
To answer number 1, I think that it is extremely important for politicians to follow the legislation that they support. It comes across as insincere and hypocritical if they do otherwise. Mayor Breed's case at the club is no different, and it only fuels the notion for some that masks are purely political. I believe that governor Newsom had a similar incident last year where he visited a restaurant without social distancing when Covid was at a peak (this story and more of politician hypocrisy here: https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-coronavirus-pandemic-california-napa-gavin-newsom-00231e30f720a999e4187c6600489108). There is a reason why masks have become such a divisive political issue within America, and the mixed messages coming from politicians in the separation between their actions and their words only increase this divide. Like Pascal said, there are definitely times when constantly harping about wearing masks CONSTANTLY (like in between individual bites of food) becomes too extreme and perhaps impossible to follow 100% of the time; however, as Nicky pointed out, there were points with the dancing where it is very easy to wear a mask. Politicians like Mayor Breed need to set a better example for the people and areas which they represent and not fuel the idea that masks and vaccines are a political symbol rather than a simple health measure that could save countless lives.
Like others have said before me, I believe that the people who put the mandates in place need to follow those laws; otherwise they set a bad precedent for the people that view them. After all, how can a legislator act as if they are above the law? Moreover, the manner in which she flippantly dismissed the complaints against her ("the fun police") was not a good way to act about this at all.
To answer #2, I believe it should be locals first, states second, and national government third, because localities are generally meant to know best about the situation of COVID-19 or other health-related issues in their areas, and can tailor their mandates accordingly. However, if what they are doing is bad for the health of their people, then the states should be able to step in; they are more powerful, but still have a level of familiarity with the people. Finally, if the states are also passing (or not passing) laws that are bad for the people, then the national government can issue a mandate; the least level of familiarity with the people, but the most power and resources to keep people safe.
Hey Nathan, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Hypocrisy seems to be the perfect word for Breed's behavior, and a lot of politician's behavior throughout the pandemic. However, political hypocrisy isn't just limited to the pandemic, it has been present since the beginning of this country. I mean, think about Thomas Jefferson who wrote the line "all men are created equal" but also owned over 600 slaves throughout his lifetime? Here's a blog post discussing Jefferson in specific in case you're interested: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/for-independence-day-a-look-at-thomas-jefferson-s-egregious-hypocrisy/. Also, what you're referencing with Newsom is his party at The French Party in Yountville, CA. And the masks have become completely politicized... although this seems to have gotten much worse as more people are getting vaccinated and/or restless with Covid restrictions. Anyways, I completely agree with your sentiment that Breed should actually believe in and follow the legislation that she claims to support publicly. Her behavior was despicable and her excuse was insulting. The fact that something as basic as a face mask is politicized is very strange... its function is not to "oppress" people, or to completely save unvaccinated people from getting sick and dying. It is simply an effective tool at reducing the risk of infection.
Thanks Amogh for your input on Breed's behavior. I think everyone agrees that her response to reporters was uncalled for and even offensive. I never thought about it that way, but you're completely right that her actions at the Black Cat made the impression that she thinks she is above the law. Also, your claim that localities should take the most initiative and be more influential on Covid-19 laws is well put. Local governments know their localities better than the federal government ever will... and if the localities fail, then states can come in with more resources. The way you based each tier of government on familiarity with the localities and legislative power/resources is really interesting. It is an inverse relationship, because as the governments get larger, more powerful, and have access to more resources, they are less familiar with the nuances of small localities.
Thanks again.
While mask mandates are definitely not useless, unless strictly enforced, they become more of a formality than an actual method of preventing Covid-19 infections. Everyone should be using masks, not just unvaccinated people, and the perception that this pandemic is over, especially in highly vaccinated areas, is harmful. This is due to new variants that are potentially vaccine-resistant to some degree. While not fully understood, people should lean more towards the cautious side due to the data; current Covid-19 statistics show that case numbers today are as high as this time last year. (Even though vaccinated individuals have significantly lower rates of contracting the virus, it's still alarming to say the least.)
Sadly, it seems that the mask mandates we do have in place are mostly for appearances. The pandemic hasn’t ended, but American’s exhaustion of Covid-19 restrictions makes it appear as if it has ended. With students returning to in-person schooling and higher vaccination rates in certain areas, masks have become seen as unnecessary (and further politicized, like many others have pointed out -- “I’ll still wear the mask even though I’m vaccinated to not look Republican” -- even though vaccinated individuals should still be masking up in any case).
Politicians should definitely ‘practice what they preach,’ and like Nathan said, it comes off as hypocritical if politicians don't follow legislation they support. In this case, it’s even more essential for Mayor London Breed to follow the regulations of the mask mandate she supported. By violating the mandate and then trying to justify her actions because “everyone who came in there was vaccinated,” she sends the wrong message that masks are unnecessary if you are vaccinated. No, masks are not simply for appearances, and they’re an imperative tool in making gatherings as safe as possible for everyone there. Vaccines don't guarantee complete protection, as seen with breakthrough cases becoming more and more prevalent. And I agree with Amogh about Mayor London Breed handling this situation very poorly. Rather than admitting fault and using the opportunity to emphasize the usefulness of masks, Breed chose to save face and undermine the gravity of the on-going pandemic. (like every politician ever, but this was especially morally reprehensible)
Links to Covid-19 statistics (from beginning of pandemic to now) and more info on breakthrough cases in case you're interested:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/california-covid-cases.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/10/us/covid-breakthrough-infections-vaccines.html
Thanks for shedding some light on the urgency of the Covid-19 situation, Anthony. There is so much data out there about cases, hospitalizations, variants, and new treatments, but ultimately the majority of data about the virus is still unknown. What new variants will form in the future? How long are the vaccines effective? Are the vaccines effective against some variants at all? And your point that mask mandates are only for "optics" is very true and unfortunate. People have very differing mentalities over the effectiveness of masks, which makes Covid-19 policy very difficult to decide. Also, for London Breed, it seems there is unanimous agreement across everyone in the comment section that her actions were unwarranted, dangerous, and extremely hypocritical.
Answering question 1, I think is it extremely important that politicians personally follow the legislation that they help pass or support. When politicians announce they are going to help pass or support a certain cause, in this case wearing a mask indoors when appropriate to. And they don't, in the public eye it is seen as hypocritical, selfish, and inconsiderate. It is also seen by the public that you don't fully put your word into what you promise to help or support. It creates an environment that you don't want to be a part of especially since you are a politician. The message Mayor Breed is sending to the public is that she is breaching her own mask mandate. It sends the message that if it's okay for her to break her own mask mandate to have a little fun, people can do the same and follow her lead. This is not a politician role model most people want leading them.
As mentioned by other commentators, I believe that politicians should follow and help support their own legislation. Leadership figures are often held to a certain standard and are constantly watched, something they must be mindful of. Going against their own beliefs, in this case, Breed’s legislation only weakens the legitimacy of the legislation. While an ABC7 NEWS SEGMENT (https://abc7news.com/london-breed-masks-maskless-black-cat-tenderloin-sf/11030503/)
also recognized how difficult it is to enforce an indoor mask mandate as people have to take it off in order to eat and drink, others recognize the hypocrisy in Mayor Breed’s actions. This further suggests the idea that authoritative figures are held to a certain standard compared to the general public, for it will only validate others to make exceptions as well. In fact, il Cilentano’s restaurant owner, Santo Esposito, further advocated how unfair the mayor was being after all the restrictions restaurants had to follow in order to remain open. Having a figurehead who abides by their word puts trust into our political system as it holds leaders accountable for their actions. Regarding the comment about our divisive nation, this is further emphasized by how bloggers with various political views (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/vaccine-passports-a-new-segregation/ and (https://www.grubstreet.com/2021/08/the-vaccine-mandate-will-not-destroy-your-restaurant.html#_ga=2.207370320.2135965135.1629434784-1495257120.1629434784) both argue this fact. Considering how polarized America has become, this agreement further recognizes how separate our nation is.
Hey Ethan, thanks for your thoughtful response. I like that you assert that not only do certain individuals view Breed's actions as "hypocritical, selfish, and inconsiderate," but the public as a whole. This is not a situation where only political enemies or opposite political parties criticize her actions, but everyone as a whole. Because, on principle, politicians should completely abide by the legislation that they endorse. And yes, her behavior makes people question the necessity of their own measures to wear masks, which leads to growing culture of no masks and no protection from Covid-19.
Hey Crystal, thanks for your input on the situation. I also appreciate the reference to the segment recognizing that mask mandates are very difficult to enforce in most situations... because it's true! These mandates may be necessary, but for a mayor to ignore the legislation of their own city is reprehensible. You're actually the first person in this comment section to mention the word "trust," but it is super important that citizens can trust the people they elect to be genuine about their policy. Of course, we should also always question authority, but mutual trust is very important in this specific context. Thanks for nodding to the polarization in our country, because Covid-19 policy across different states has made that polarization even more obvious.
Post a Comment