What if the lockdown was all a big mistake?

[Vol Texan]

Not unexpectedly, Harris County Judge Hidalgo has been sued over yesterday's mandatory face mask order. Per the Houston Chronicle article linked below:

Hotze...said in a petition filed in state district court that the mask rule is at odds with a provision of the Constitution that gives the Legislature "exclusive authority to define crimes and to designate the punishments for those crimes." The petition also contends that Hidalgo cannot issue more restrictive orders than Abbott, who has not mandated that Texans wear masks in public.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/h ... 221364.php

On the first point they will lose. The legislature defined the crime. I did find that in chapter 418 when I read the code.

Steve, I ALWAYS appreciate reading your analysis of things, particularly legal issues. I've read chapter 418, and I do see where she has the authority to declare disaster, control ingress and egress, mandate evacuation, and even control the movement of people. But I don't see where she has the authority to tell me to wear a mask, any more than I see she has the authority that I wear Reebok instead of Nike tennis shoes. I don't claim to be a legal scholar, so I welcome your perspective on this - do you think that such an order is within her power?

[srothstein]

Steve, I ALWAYS appreciate reading your analysis of things, particularly legal issues. I've read chapter 418, and I do see where she has the authority to declare disaster, control ingress and egress, mandate evacuation, and even control the movement of people. But I don't see where she has the authority to tell me to wear a mask, any more than I see she has the authority that I wear Reebok instead of Nike tennis shoes. I don't claim to be a legal scholar, so I welcome your perspective on this - do you think that such an order is within her power?

I am not sure this is within her power or not. I have read some interesting news articles claiming either way. As you point out, she has the authority to control movement of people in her jurisdiction and that might include saying people can only move if they are wearing a mask. It would be an interesting court case when someone does fight it. As an aside, San Antonio requires people to wear masks made from cloth. It does not define what type of cloth as near as I could tell. I keep wondering when someone will make a mask out of fishnet stockings just to challenge the law. It meets the definition and does about as much good as any other cloth mask, IMO.

What I was referring to though was that failure to obey the management plan is a crime as defined in the law. Section 418.173 is where the legislature made it a crime to not obey an emergency management plan. A lawsuit claiming that the Judge tried to define the crime by issuing the order to wear masks as part of the management plan is, IMO, going to fail because of that law.

The one point I am sure of is that chapter 418 was clearly written assuming some type of natural disaster, such as a hurricane or wildfire and they are stretching it hard to cover the current situation.

[srothstein]

At least I don't think I'm reading it wrong. I'm looking at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... GV.418.htm and https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... LG.352.htm. Is this an error in GC 418 or just another one of those legal-language oddities? I know it doesn't mean anything in the topic context, but why would a 60-hour extension of local fireworks regulations be put expressly in 418.108 and require approval by the governor to go beyond 60 hours? I mean, LGC 352.051 already includes "the commissioners court of the county by order may prohibit or restrict the sale or use of restricted fireworks in the unincorporated area of the county" so it's a bit baffling why the sale or use of "skyrockets with sticks" and "missiles with fins" would be something to be called out in statutes related to the declaration of local disasters. Just another bit of the code that keeps me

I gave up trying to understand some of these cross references years ago. They make no sense to me. The explanation I was given once was to remember that almost every law since the Ten Commandments was made because someone did something stupid. Either they did something stupid that people wanted to stop, so they passed a law about it, or they got in trouble over something stupid so they passe an exception to the law for it. This came up in a class where the instructor was pointing out that there is a law making it illegal to give a cash gift to any state employee, and it then has a specific exemption for giving a tip to a waiter in a restaurant in a state park.

[Rafe]

At least I don't think I'm reading it wrong. I'm looking at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... GV.418.htm and https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... LG.352.htm. Is this an error in GC 418 or just another one of those legal-language oddities? I know it doesn't mean anything in the topic context, but why would a 60-hour extension of local fireworks regulations be put expressly in 418.108 and require approval by the governor to go beyond 60 hours? I mean, LGC 352.051 already includes "the commissioners court of the county by order may prohibit or restrict the sale or use of restricted fireworks in the unincorporated area of the county" so it's a bit baffling why the sale or use of "skyrockets with sticks" and "missiles with fins" would be something to be called out in statutes related to the declaration of local disasters. Just another bit of the code that keeps me

I gave up trying to understand some of these cross references years ago. They make no sense to me. The explanation I was given once was to remember that almost every law since the Ten Commandments was made because someone did something stupid. Either they did something stupid that people wanted to stop, so they passed a law about it, or they got in trouble over something stupid so they passe an exception to the law for it. This came up in a class where the instructor was pointing out that there is a law making it illegal to give a cash gift to any state employee, and it then has a specific exemption for giving a tip to a waiter in a restaurant in a state park.

Thanks, Steve! And that motivates me to think about finding someplace, maybe in the Transportation Code, to write a bill to include a special increase in penalties for any motor vehicle attempting to cross a drawbridge when the bridge is in the raised position: https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2019-02.html.