Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Maybe they’ll scrap it altogether, but honestly? The real question is how on earth things are going to play out once people start heading out in every direction at once.

I believe it will happen, provided people actually follow instructions and we manage to purge certain types—you know, the Bandić-style figures—from our politics. A content man finds everything much easier to bear.
As it stands, it has been 24 days since the last proven case of someone carrying the virus... in other words, there have been no new ones. This whole "virus" business opens up quite a few questions.

Gerald Kern77 said:Here you go, the legal amendments.

The legal foundation itself is airtight—the real question is whether the decision and its execution should have been more logical, perhaps accounting for a broader range of real-world scenarios.

You think the legal basis is unquestionable? Fine. Tell me—where in that specific decision does it explicitly state that citizens' freedom of movement is prohibited?

Jerry Robinson56 said:Even if a critical "mass" were to assemble... regarding the law, though I have already made my points quite clearly...

The legal framework has existed for a long time, specifically designed for unforeseen circumstances or those relatively unlikely events.

The fundamental logic is to prevent the expansion of infection—because without a host, viruses simply die out.
It is entirely logical to restrict movement, given that tracking a massive number of individuals becomes impossible, and once those numbers reach a certain threshold, things spiral. In my view, while tracking might be technically possible, there is no reason to overcomplicate a simple solution.

The Infectious Disease Protection Act doesn't ban the freedom of movement for citizens at a national level.

rustywalker42 said:You think the legal basis is unquestionable? Fine. Tell me—where in that specific decision does it explicitly state that citizens' freedom of movement is prohibited?

The Infectious Disease Protection Act doesn't ban the freedom of movement for citizens at a national level.

That isn't the Law to respect Anton, rustywalker42 😁... it lays out everything explicitly within its pages and reaches back into the last century ... let the forum users play a little game... I’m essentially calling them fools and simpletons here (that’s a value judgment, not a fact), as they criticize a Headquarters that is performing excellently and exclusively in the interest of American residents.
As if he didn't commit enough blunders during his time as Prime Minister, the "top law student"... if you can even believe it.

rustywalker42 said:You think the legal basis is unquestionable? Fine. Tell me—where in that specific decision does it explicitly state that citizens' freedom of movement is prohibited?

The Infectious Disease Protection Act doesn't ban the freedom of movement for citizens at a national level.

It doesn't need to be explicit—this provision covers it.

"In the event of special circumstances involving an unforeseen and uncontrollable event that threatens the lives and health of citizens, high-value property, significantly damages the environment, disrupts economic activity, or causes substantial economic loss, the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America issues decisions and instructions to be implemented by local and regional Civil Protection Headquarters."

Furthermore, the Infectious Disease Protection Act includes measures such as:

"Prohibiting the movement of persons, or restricting movement within infected or directly threatened areas."

That could apply to any area—there isn't a single county left without COVID.

The Civil Protection System Act basically just gave the National Headquarters authority over all the other local headquarters—nothing more, nothing less.

The Infectious Disease Protection Act also carries some weight regarding quarantine measures—like providing financial compensation for anyone whose movement is restricted, among other things.

nimbleharbor10 said:The sheer stupidity lies in creating this artificial necessity to hunt down permits. If we were being logical here in the States, perhaps limiting movement within county lines would make sense. But with this whole permit circus, hundreds of thousands of people already hold them because they’re part of the Headquarters, issued them to themselves, or actually have a valid excuse. This means restricting movement is both mindless and useless; ultimately, the people with genuine needs get penalized while scammers just forge an ID, all while police checkpoints create unnecessary friction with citizens.

Furthermore, the gentlemen at the Headquarters really ought to realize they lack any actual legal standing for these prohibitions. If Congress were to declare a State of Emergency, that would provide the Civil Defense Headquarters with the necessary legal foundation; as it stands, they are simply violating the Constitution. The fact that the police are assisting them in these violations, and the media is just blaring about how citizens aren't allowed to leave their residences, only highlights how prone we are as a society to authoritarianism—how we'd rather spit on the law than actually fix it.

Chaos, public resentment, flawed solutions, and far too many pointless local agencies:

This article might actually be drawing from some of my own posts from just three days ago:

But hey—it’s good to know someone is actually reading this forum...

So, I’ll add this to the mix:

Wherever an opposition party holds power at the municipal level—they start making noise...
(playing the political points game, though, fair enough... that’s their prerogative...)

I just hope those folks in the ruling parties realize they need to stack up political capital too... specifically with the people living in these small towns—or rural areas, rather... because that is where their actual voter base resides.

In the major metropolitan cities, they don't really have much of a stake there....

Elections are coming, and they’ll be here before we know it...😁

Anthony Jackson2 said:The Civil Protection System Act basically just gave the National Headquarters authority over all the other local headquarters—nothing more, nothing less.

The Infectious Disease Protection Act also carries some weight regarding quarantine measures—like providing financial compensation for anyone whose movement is restricted, among other things.

That isn't quite right—it actually gave the Headquarters the power to issue mandates; which explains why they rushed that whole process through Congress.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the Official Gazette:

"Pursuant to Article 22.a of the Civil Protection System Act (Official Gazette No. 82/15, 118/18, and 31/20), the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America, on March 23, 2020, hereby issues

DECISION

REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVING ONE'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DOMICILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

Gerald Kern77 said:That isn't quite right—it actually gave the Headquarters the power to issue mandates; which explains why they rushed that whole process through Congress.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the Official Gazette:

"Pursuant to Article 22.a of the Civil Protection System Act (Official Gazette No. 82/15, 118/18, and 31/20), the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America, on March 23, 2020, hereby issues

DECISION

REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVING ONE'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DOMICILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

Can the Headquarters just swoop in and decide to appoint a lifetime president, pick a new Prime Minister, change presidential powers, or just dissolve Congress entirely?

The straight answer is "no, because that would clash directly with other laws and the Constitution." But let’s be real—that same logic applies to absolutely any other decision they try to make that runs headfirst into existing laws and the Constitution.

Gerald Kern77 said:Here you go, the legal amendments.

The legal foundation itself is airtight—the real question is whether the decision and its execution should have been more logical, perhaps accounting for a broader range of real-world scenarios.

Alright, so we've got you saying one thing, and then there's a Supreme Court judge saying something completely different. I guess everyone will just have to decide for themselves who's actually right about this.

Gerald Kern77 said:That isn't quite right—it actually gave the Headquarters the power to issue mandates; which explains why they rushed that whole process through Congress.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the Official Gazette:

"Pursuant to Article 22.a of the Civil Protection System Act (Official Gazette No. 82/15, 118/18, and 31/20), the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America, on March 23, 2020, hereby issues

DECISION

REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVING ONE'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DOMICILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

Yeah, the decisions are carried out by the various local civil headquarters—not the state itself.

Read it again, slowly this time—then you'll see. Legally speaking, that decision is empty.

It isn't quite that straightforward, I suppose.

Aside from the points my colleague already brought up—the amendment to the law still doesn't grant the Headquarters the authority to just make whatever arbitrary decisions they feel like—it might also come down to the whole hierarchy of laws, where lower-level regulations have to actually align with higher ones.

vividranger8 said:Alright, so we've got you saying one thing, and then there's a Supreme Court judge saying something completely different. I guess everyone will just have to decide for themselves who's actually right about this.

It isn't me making the claim—it's the Supreme Court distancing itself from a single member's opinion
via a press release

Congress moved with intentional speed—debate in the morning, immediate vote, Milanovic signing it instantly, and then straight to the Official Gazette—to grant expanded powers to the National Headquarters, including this one. We can argue about it all we want, but even the Supreme Court has sided with them.

So, here we go—the Secretary is claiming they’ve already issued nearly half a million passes, and he’s hinting at a massive surge coming soon since companies haven't even started sending in their group requests yet. Apparently, he thinks the whole pass system has been an absolute success and totally justified its existence.

He completely dodged the actual issue regarding restricting movement to specific police jurisdictions instead of just sticking to municipal boundaries.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Yeah, the decisions are carried out by the various local civil headquarters—not the state itself.

Read it again, slowly this time—then you'll see. Legally speaking, that decision is empty.

I assume you're a lawyer?

The Supreme Court ruled in their favor—I suppose they didn't spot those loopholes you're so fond of.

I'll keep my own opinion on whether these decisions are actually good—they've certainly made my private life a mess—but the Headquarters has the authority to make them. Of course, if Congress declares a state of emergency under Article 17 of the Constitution, then any decisions limiting civil liberties require a two-thirds majority.

I’m going to say this again—and I might just have to repeat myself a few more times if necessary:
Personally, I don't have an issue with the concept of movement restrictions themselves.
The real issue lies in the fact that applying these limitations based on municipal boundaries (that is, arbitrary administrative lines) is completely illogical and—if you really want to put it that way—disproportionate...

Article 16 of the Constitution states:

Rights and freedoms may only be restricted by law in order to protect the freedom and rights of others, the legal order, public morality, and health.
Any restriction of freedom or rights must be [B]proportionate to the nature of the need for such a restriction in each individual case.[/B]

Where exactly is the "proportionality" in this?
Restricting movement within a small suburb of 6km2 versus restricting it within a massive metropolitan area like Washington, D.C., which spans 640km2—I fail to see any "proportionate nature of the need" there—regardless of how one chooses to define it...

☕

Nicholas King said:So, here we go—the Secretary is claiming they’ve already issued nearly half a million passes, and he’s hinting at a massive surge coming soon since companies haven't even started sending in their group requests yet. Apparently, he thinks the whole pass system has been an absolute success and totally justified its existence.

He completely dodged the actual issue regarding restricting movement to specific police jurisdictions instead of just sticking to municipal boundaries.

Police departments—or just local precincts?

Because if I recall correctly, my suggestion was to limit movement based on individual precincts.

It’s funny seeing journalists just recycling questions straight from the forums... though I guess there's nothing wrong with that. 😉😁

rustywalker42 said:Proving your innocence through the legal system.

Which law?

That’s just not true. There have to be specific grounds for ending a marriage; the court isn't just going to decide that on its own whim. There has to be a legitimate legal interest for the people involved in the proceedings.

So, what, you actually think there’s some kind of marriage inspector out there checking up on all that?

My favorite people are the ones who refuse to pay that 18% withholding tax—honestly, I feel the same way, but hey, duty calls. Now you've all left yourselves logged in somewhere, who knows where... is this going to be an issue?
I mean, why on earth did you even drag yourself all the way out of Washington, D.C., if you’re just going to live and work here anyway?

That’s not entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (registered residence), but you still have to pay taxes based on where you are officially domiciled.

Got a specific example for that claim?

John Doe:

All I see online is people whining about how "unbearable" this is because they want to see their partner, go for a walk, hit up a lake house, or visit family for Easter... Just pure entitlement and acting spoiled—thinking everything should happen exactly when and how they want it.

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is this much against the Constitution.

That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Based on everything I’ve seen from people over the years, when you finally make that trek back to your hometown, nobody actually asks you any questions—you just show up, and that's that. You simply arrive home.

Where we see those absolute hotspots—the areas where things have truly spiraled out of control because either the contact circles among the infected can't be pinpointed or they're just way too massive compared to the general population—there’s absolutely zero movement being made. As it stands right now, we're looking at nothing but total stagnation in places like the Island, Betin, and Kornat Island.

If you’re going to keep digging your heels in on that particular claim, the least you could do is back it up with a concrete example or, better yet, an official statement from someone who actually has the authority to speak on the matter.

Honestly, this says more about you than anyone else. You’ve got an epidemiologist literally telling us that getting some fresh air is healthy and actually helps boost the immune system, yet you’re sitting here acting like you have some divine insight, hysterical over people who are simply following professional guidance. And then, to top it off, you turn around and start lecturing everyone else as if they’re all self-proclaimed experts just because they aren't panicking like you are. If we're being real, you’re far more likely to end up needing a ventilator due to the sheer physical toll of the stress you're inducing in yourself through this constant hysterics, compared to someone who just went for a walk and followed the instructions laid out by the National Headquarters.

If you’re sitting there wondering why they won't just sign some official declaration stating that stepping out for a walk isn't actually a high-risk activity, let me break this down for you. Look, maybe taking a stroll through the park isn't inherently dangerous—hell, maybe a bit of fresh air and movement actually does wonders for your immune system. I’m all for getting outside, really, I am. But that doesn't change the fundamental reality of the situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" the walk itself feels when you consider that tomorrow, you could be standing in the middle of a Walmart aisle and have someone who's carrying a virus sneeze right into your face. That's the part people seem to be glossing over in this whole debate.

Regarding that quoted text, I actually provided the specific source for you—it’s the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to streamline cross-border legal access and ensure the public can actually find information regarding their various initiatives and general European Union policies. It is, quite frankly, a much more relevant and reliable source than that rather bleak interpretation you've pulled from somewhere where the sun never shines.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Edward Fisher86 said:Whether they were negligent or had a valid excuse, the fact remains that the problem needs solving, and as of right now, nobody seems to have a clue how.

If you felt we weren't on the same page, you could have just said so instead of resorting to insults. I have zero interest in your smug little emojis paired with fresh attempts at being offensive. Period. Full stop.

-------
-------------------------------------

Oh, please, they are absolutely gloating, listing off all these examples of how everyone screwed each other over regarding things like tolls, transportation, or even loans... 🙄
Besides renting, there are plenty of ways to suddenly find yourself stuck with the wrong legal residence.

It's easy to throw a fit when you feel justified—fine, give me the fine, but let me fix my paperwork first.
That seems to be the one thing you can't handle right now, especially since you can't even do it online.
Sure, if you listen to that Secretary, he'll tell you it's possible, so why wouldn't you be pissed?

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Joshua Gray75 said:There’s a massive wave of frustration regarding the sheer illogic of the stay-at-home orders—so many citizens are pushing back because they can't even drive to the next town over just to hit a pharmacy (since their own town doesn't have one) or grab gas at a station (because there isn't one in their municipality). They're taking these complaints straight to local officials, who—to be fair—are starting to realize this isn't a sustainable long-term strategy. Of course, you'll notice those local leaders are much more receptive when the Democratic Party or some other opposition group holds the reins...

As far as I can tell, these logical inconsistencies are only really being flagged by two members on this forum.
Maybe a few others too—though they aren't nearly as loud about it—or perhaps they've finally grasped what the vast majority of people here (and elsewhere) are actually talking about.

For some, a massive ego simply won't allow them to admit that they might be wrong—even occasionally.
For others, this forum serves as little more than an outlet for personal frustrations...
Some people just don't want to think.
And then there are those for whom it all simply doesn't matter.

☕

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

vividranger8 said:Look, I’m not exactly a huge fan of the crew sitting on the Supreme Court right now—not by a long shot—but clearly, you've got a better handle on this than they do! I mean, seriously, which law is actually in effect here that lets them just shut down the entire country? Especially when we're talking about a situation where the infectious disease is already everywhere... it's not like some tiny little corner of the country is under quarantine to stop it from spreading out, right? It's everywhere!

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

Joseph Taylor11 said:Police departments—or just local precincts?

Because if I recall correctly, my suggestion was to limit movement based on individual precincts.

It’s funny seeing journalists just recycling questions straight from the forums... though I guess there's nothing wrong with that. 😉😁

Police Departments. If we talked about individual precincts in every single city, it would be an absolute circus.

The real point here is the sheer absurdity of granting "restrictions" to more than half a million people.