Safe travels unenforceable?

[kalakoa]

If they keep extending it though, I know how to start some major shit at least.

Hawaii's legal "system" is based on retaliation. It doesn't matter if you win or lose in court, you won't be allowed to live here anymore. This is one reason why there are no challenges to the "obviously unconstitutional" travel restrictions. The other major reason is a prevalence of the culturally ingrained "may I please/I think I want/if it's OK" attitude.

I'm pretty sure the emergency order will be extended again, with looser restrictions for Oahu that don't apply to the other islands. Ige will continue to parrot hand-picked "experts" that support his position; surging case counts elsewhere will be used as "proof" that our restrictions are "keeping Hawaii safe". All of this is necessary for Safe Travels to perform its primary function: tourism enhancement.

It's all about tourism, always has been, always will be.

[malahini]

If they keep extending it though, I know how to start some major shit at least.

Hawaii's legal "system" is based on retaliation. It doesn't matter if you win or lose in court, you won't be allowed to live here anymore. This is one reason why there are no challenges to the "obviously unconstitutional" travel restrictions. The other major reason is a prevalence of the culturally ingrained "may I please/I think I want/if it's OK" attitude.

I'm pretty sure the emergency order will be extended again, with looser restrictions for Oahu that don't apply to the other islands. Ige will continue to parrot hand-picked "experts" that support his position; surging case counts elsewhere will be used as "proof" that our restrictions are "keeping Hawaii safe". All of this is necessary for Safe Travels to perform its primary function: tourism enhancement.

It's all about tourism, always has been, always will be.

Not sure how they can prevent you from living here. That is not without eventually opening themselves up to federal issues. They could probably make it hell on you, but someone willing to fight back would prevail. The problem is they might be able to bankrupt you in the meantime.

I've heard of people getting "kicked off" the island before. But they were the types of people I doubt would know anything about their actual rights, and likely deserved it anyway.

As for safe travels being all about tourism... It depends what you mean. I'm not really buying it that much. I tend to think Ige does actually care about the virus, but he's just beholden to an overly risk averse epidemiologist. Well that and sheer incompetency.

[kalakoa]

Your "actual rights" aren't really relevant. Best of luck.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

someone willing to fight back would prevail. The problem is they might be able to bankrupt you in the meantime.

That's not my definition of "prevail."


their actual rights,

Usually determined by "doing your own research."
Works out about the same as Facebook COVID research too.

[malahini]

Your "actual rights" aren't really relevant. Best of luck.

Like I said. It's against my better judgement.

But that doesn't mean I won't spread the word about this. Maybe someone with time that can find an activist lawyer would have fun with this.

That's not my definition of "prevail."

Prevail legally. My point was it likely wouldn't be worth it unless you had really deep pockets. That or really good pro bono legal representation.

their actual rights,

Usually determined by "doing your own research."
Works out about the same as Facebook COVID research too.

You could actually attempt to counter my argument with some sort of fact. Explain to me why there are zero court records for any of the people I looked up besides the Kauai couple. With the exception of the Kauai couple, they didn't even collect a fine.

I was taking another look at the court records. The other night the site shut down for maintenance before I could finish, and yesterday I was either driving or riding in a car and I couldn't easily use the court site from my phone.

I paid $3.00 to pull the original complaint for reckless endangerment, and a few other documents. I wasn't going to bother, but you continue with this.

I will admit I misread the date on the amended complaint. I thought that was on 12/24, not the date of the trial which is 4/20. While I admit the Kauai couple could have been a plea deal I'm really doubting that reckless endangerment would stick, and if so not overturned on appeal.

The state can't prevent someone from travelling home, covid positive or not. Even if it had to go to federal court, this would almost certainly get overturned. Breaking quarantine is a bit of a different issue, but still doubting it.

Do you really believe they can? There's nothing different here than Ige admitting he can't prevent tourists from coming, because it is their right as US citizens to travel amongst the 50 states. The state of Hawaii cannot legally convict someone with a crime for merely travelling here, that is... not according to the feds.

The problem is to challenge this in federal court you have to actually have standing. That is you would have to have been convicted in the state of Hawaii, appealed all the way to the Hawaii Supreme Court, then if they still upheld the conviction the first federal court you appealed it to would overturn it without a second thought. If it went this far though, it would be a major stain on Hawaii and especially those who supported the safe travels program.

The point is a public defender, which is what they had, I looked), isn't going to be willing to go through all of this, and most people wouldn't. What the state is doing is still technically illegal though.

It's just it would be very costly and time consuming to call them on. The reason why they aren't collecting fines except for the moronic Kauai couple is because they know if someone calls them on this the whole thing is doomed in federal court.

Maybe you could explain to me why you are so hellbent on attacking me through fallacious means. Screeching "doing your own research" over and over doesn't help your argument whatsoever.

Put down the knife, jeez.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Do you really believe they can?

It doesn’t matter what I believe, because they can and do.
There’s a procedure in place that 99.9% of the people find slightly inconvenient at worst. 

Your argument reminds me of the “don’t pay your taxes because if you look sideways at such & such a law you don’t have to.  A few people don’t pay taxes, claim they don’t have to in court, and then go to jail.

[malahini]

Your argument reminds me of the “don’t pay your taxes because if you look sideways at such & such a law you don’t have to.  A few people don’t pay taxes, claim they don’t have to in court, and then go to jail.

It's not though, and you've not explained how it is. Did you even read my previous post?

Travel is not in the jurisdiction of the state. That is federal jurisdiction. The feds can stop people from travelling, a state cannot.

Edwards v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 160,

[Obie]

It's against airline rules to board a flight when you have covid. Those people will never fly that airline again. Kind of important to be able to fly if you live on an island.

There are federal regulations that prevent you from flying without a mask.

If I would have been a passenger on that flight I would be looking for a lawyer to persue a civil suit and take their house from them.

I'm not going to bother looking for a regulation against flying with covid.

[malahini]

Airline rules are airline rules. The state has no control over them. That's not what this was about. That's why I did not bother to mention them before.

Neither of you are very good at this.

I start to convince myself I must be right when no one actually has a real rebuttal to anything I am saying.

However... OOPS. It looks like I have to admit defeat, but only at my own hands. Neither of you are very good at debating...

I somehow missed this.

Railroad Co. v. Husen (1877) 95 U.S. 465, 471.

And

Compagnie Francaise de Navigation à Vapeur v. Louisiana State Bd. of Health (1902) 186 U.S. 380.

What's interesting about the latter is they actually turned a ship away. This is similar to what they do to people at the airport when they put them on a plane back to the mainland.

However, I'm not sure any restriction like this has lasted for nearly two years. At some point Ige's legal authority to do this will run afoul of the feds.

There's also the issue that neither of these dealt with travel of PERSONS across state lines. Just a foreign ship and US cattle. That said it certainly weakens the case that it would necessarily get overturned by a federal court.

https://marinbar.org/news/article/?type=news&id=553

Code:

The longer these restrictions remain in effect, the more they demand judicial scrutiny. That said, noted constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA’s School of Law has opined that some forms of travel restrictions are likely to withstand scrutiny, “based on the general thrust of the cases—coupled with the fact that judges likely don't want to deny government officials the temporary tools they need to stave off likely tens of thousands (or more) deaths in this extraordinary time....” (Eugene Volokh, Restrictions on Interstate (and Intrastate) Travel in an Epidemic, The Volokh Conspiracy Blog (Apr. 4, 2020),

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/04/04/res...-epidemic/

I trust Volokh...

Code:

Generally speaking, state governments can't bar people from entering a state, or for that matter traveling within the state. Such prohibitions might normally violate the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or a substantive due process right to travel.

But the law has long recognized that a state faced with real danger of contagious disease can restrict these rights

Notice in the past I mentioned interstate commerce/commerce clause. As well as 14th due process rights. I do know what I am talking about, mostly.

[kalakoa]

The feds can stop people from travelling, a state cannot.

State is not preventing you from traveling between states; they are limiting your freedom of movement within the state once you arrive, similar to restrictions imposed in other states during the early days of the pandemic. Expect the state to stand on this defense if ever challenged. Hawaii seems to think it's a foreign country.

It's just it would be very costly and time consuming to call them on.

It's faster and cheaper to move to another state that has a functional government. Even if Safe Travels eventually goes away (via Federal court, since the State will never give up the control and the wealth of tourism data) Hawaii will still have a rail project that absorbs any and all revenue, fake missile alerts, regressive taxation, a corrupt old-boy network, cops that shoot first, weekly water main break, overrun with tourism, "cannot ship your item to Hawaii", failure to issue REAL ID, no accountability, punitive rules, expensive everything...

If you're not doing something that's "Hawaii-specific", it's a better deal to live almost anywhere else.