The Second Lawlessness
Published by Jake Allen September 7th, 2005 in UncategorizedWhy are so few people discussing the illegality of the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans? It seems that good intentions are paving the road to a loss of civil rights.
We have the right to stay in our homes. If there is evidence of a crime, then a judge can issue a warrant. If a person is in a public place, even a sidewalk, then a mandatory evacuation can be enforced there. When has the government had the right to forcibly remove persons from their homes? Is the recent eminent domain ruling precedent for this? When the people being dragged from their homes tonight sue the city, will the city’s lawyers have anything to argue except, “It was for their own good”?
I don’t want people to stay in their homes. They will probably be further exposed to deadly bacteria and continue to suffer a lack of food, water, utilities and services. But if we sacrifice our liberties, then the terrorists win . . . er, um I mean the hurricane wins, or something.
Madness!
I could not agree more. You beat me to this post.
It’s not necessarily illegal. Emergency situations typically come with very broad powers, and (as I understand it) the law recognizes that in dire emergencies, normal procedures and/or civil rights can be short-circuited. I say “law” but it really means the courts are reluctant to interfere with the executive powers in extraordinary situations like New Orleans now.
Since New Orleans is under some sort of state of emergency, I’m betting that even if it’s not precisely legal, the courts will uphold the mandatory evacuation because of the completely extraordinary circumstances.
Anthony, to say that you will need to demonstrate that there is an immediate and compelling public interest in removing people from their own homes. Preventing their own death is not enough. How does the public at large suffer in an immediate and dire way if these people are left in their homes? Are other people’s liberties violated if they stay put? I can’t see how. If they stay put, live or die, the public at large is not harmed. Remember Waco, TX?
Hitler seized power in an emergency. I’m not comparing anyone to Hitler, just reminding us that emergencies are no excuse to forgo liberty.
Madness!
freedom to do what you want has limitations and the question is always where do you draw the line?(for more thatn one person to live in one spot there necessarily has to be compromises).
the situation in new orleans with mandatory evacuation is not analogous to the situation where a person refuses a medical treatment that would save his life. here if someone does not evacuate and that person subsequently needs to be rescued, then the person’s decision not to evacuate could potentially put the lives of rescue teams in danger. if we would agree not to rescue people who did not evacuate, then it would be okay to exercise freedom. society is not likely to do this any time soon. if hitler himself were lying sick on a roof in a flood,(and being filmed by channel seven news), we would send a rescue heliocopter with a medical team.
Jake, I don’t know the New Orleans situation well enough to know whether there is an immediate and compelling interest. Nor do am I enough of a lay-lawyer to say what the law is, other than that I know there are exceptions made in exceptional circumstances that wouldn’t normally be made.
It sounds like most of New Orleans is catastrophically unhealthy. I would imagine that cleaning up would be much easier without having to worry about in-place residents.
Note that I am not saying I agree with this policy: I don’t know enough to know whether it’s a good or bad idea. My reason for posting was to point out that it isn’t necessarily illegal.
Staying in New Orleans during and after the hurricane would be to de facto commit suicide. Commiting suicide is illegal, and hence it would be illegal for someone to remain in New Orleans, on their own property or anyone elses. Of course, this doesn’t require any state of emergency to be declared, but rather just an analysis of the reality of the situation. If someone is trying to kill themselves by sitting in their garage with their car running, then we stop them. Analogously, people have to leave their homes in New Orleans.
That’s how I’d try to justify it.
There’s also the whole “emergency powers” and “martial law” type stuff. Then you need to have a debate about whether it’s ever a good idea to give anyone such broad powers, or for someone to have the ability to declare themselves as temporarily having those powers. I’m inclined to think there is good reason for that–but that’s another whole argument. Don’t you think there’s something to that?
Wow, is it Blandus and I agianst the world on this one?
1) People should evacuate. I do not wish anyone to stay; indeed, I think it immoral for people to remain in NO. However, there are many things a person should do that the government cannot legally enforce.
2) Welcome Dad- I think that danger to rescue crews is the most compelling reason to forcibly remove people. Not being there, I don’t know if we can make that as a legal justification or not, but I do know that neither the major nor the governor used this justification in their initial public statements about the forced evacuation.
3) David- Suicide is not always illegal; only immediate suicide is illegal. People aren’t dropping dead of infection (yet; only a few deaths so far), and while they probably will die of infection, smokers will also probably die of cancer. The government de facto encourages smoking!
This comes down to a “for their own good” argument, that the government knows what’s best for those people and they don’t, and that the government should force them to conform. However, liberty means that the government does not know what’s best, but that individuals do. While I agree with the government that people should leave, I still maintain that people have the liberty to stay, and that the government’s actions are illegal.
Madness?
A. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with eminent domain. Much more to do with Civil War Marital Law caselaw, I suspect. Or the 1812 martial law declared after the battle of new orleans.
B. Lousisanna calls it a “state of emergency” not martial law at a state level, but its a matter of semantics.
just on a purely practical level, it’s much easier and healthier for the society at large to deal with whiney, stubborn people than dead, bloated ones who spread disease, incur disposal fees, and don’t produce anything.
so yes, it is a matter of the good of society. like our moms always said, somebody’s gonna have to clean up this mess, and if you don’t leave before you die of typhus, it’s probably gonna be me.