Masks and social distancing. scientific or legal authority

hi all,
I know theres a decent group of legal eagles on here. Can someone link the law/regulation/statute re: the mandating of masks and/or social distancing?

I dont mean media links/talking heads, or government "advice".. im talking about the actual statute/regulation that makes it LEGALLY binding to wear masks, or social distancing...
Ill settle for UK/US/Irish.
i know for a fact theres an Irish law (regulation amendment - health act '74) that details the wearing of masks on public transport.... I will stipulate that (even tho its outdated). if anyone can suggest a current legal instrument that enforces the media noise.

I will settle for a peer reviewed scientific study that acknowledges the need for either? .. or a scientific study detailing the need for lockdowns?

what do you mean they dont exist?

a reply to: Midnite247

Can someone link the law/regulation/statute re: the mandating of masks and/or social distancing?

AARP - Does Your State Have A Mask Mandate

35 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico mandate face coverings in public

Following the links in each state will lead you to actual legislation.


You could follow that up with

US NEWS - These Are The States With Mask Mandates

... once again... follow the links for each respective state and you will find your legislation.


Finding country wide mandates is a little more tricky... Google is your friend.

a reply to: Midnite247

Problem is, which was a relatively smart move — the power was give by the feds to the Governor’s.

Look what the majority of them did with the power.

You will find no federal law justifying any of this.

Doesn't hardly matter. If a store decides to require masks before entry, they can do that without any sort of "legislation" allowing it. Their store; their discretion.

a reply to: schuyler

Yeah that was the point.
Push the crazy onto private citizens so the gov is not liable.

a reply to: Midnite247

In the absence of *specific* legislation, mandates generally fall under the Department of Health's authority for public health emergencies, or executive orders.

See also: Public Health Services Act

Two centuries of law guide legal approach to modern pandemic

Public Health Strategy and the Police Powers of the State

PDF: Could the President or Congress Enact a Nationwide Mask Mandate?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: schuyler

Yeah that was the point. Push the crazy onto private citizens so the gov is not liable.

The fewer laws the better. Depending on government to "take on liability" so you don't have to is why government gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

In my home town, in East Tennessee, most of us feel like the mask along with the pandemic are political weapons. Look at the numbers for the deaths from the flu, cancer, heart disease. They are far enough below normal to make up for COVID-19 deaths.

originally posted by: schuyler
Doesn't hardly matter. If a store decides to require masks before entry, they can do that without any sort of "legislation" allowing it. Their store; their discretion.

What if a business decides it doesn't want to require masks? Do they still have the option of operating as they did before Covid?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: schuyler
Doesn't hardly matter. If a store decides to require masks before entry, they can do that without any sort of "legislation" allowing it. Their store; their discretion.

What if a business decides it doesn't want to require masks? Do they still have the option of operating as they did before Covid?

If the Public health department, or the governor through an EO, decides it's a public health risk, they can't operate as they did before. But that's only if government mandates masks for businesses.

Same with health code violations in general. Correct the issue, or you do not do business.

a reply to: Liquesence
Michigan's Doofusness got b-slapped down by the courts for trying to take business licenses from open businesses like salons and restaurants.

a reply to: Liquesence

Wouldn't the Health Department have to establish, in a court of law, that there is a health risk to the public? I haven't seen any such court cases, at least in my state.

With the exception of the elderly and/or immune compromised, everyone should quit wearing masks.

This has been a an anti-totalitarian announcement.

a reply to: Zrtst

And that's what courts do, interpret law and rule based on their own scrutiny. Doesn't mean it wouldn't get upheld in other jurisdictions or by other courts across the country if challenged, or that the court was necessarily correct, but the premise still stands on state authority to declare based on public health emergency.

originally posted by: wdkirk
With the exception of the elderly and/or immune compromised, everyone should quit wearing masks.

This has been a an anti-totalitarian announcement.

Thank you Dr. virologist Nobody.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Liquesence

Wouldn't the Health Department have to establish, in a court of law, that there is a health risk to the public? I haven't seen any such court cases, at least in my state.

No. Risks have already been established by law. See links above involving mitigating transmission of highly contagious disease.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Liquesence

Wouldn't the Health Department have to establish, in a court of law, that there is a health risk to the public? I haven't seen any such court cases, at least in my state.

No. Risks have already been established by law. See links above involving mitigating transmission of highly contagious disease.

Reading the links you posted, I see two main themes:

First, Federal or State governments can pass laws to deal with health and safety issues. I'm not aware of any State legislature that has sent any legislation to a governor to be signed. Congress, obviously, has been too busy trying to impeach Trump to craft any such legislation.

Second, the President and/or state governors can take emergency action to deal with health and safety issues. Coming up to nearly a year, this can hardly be considered an emergency any more. There has been plenty of time for government to function as it should: Legislators make laws, Executives enforce the laws, Judges judge the laws.

It seems to me that legislators are perfectly happy to shirk their duties to avoid any backlash from their constituents.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Guess you missed the parts where law exists to allow them to take measures on a state and local level when it involves a public health emergency.

Second, the President and/or state governors can take emergency action

Hence my initial and subsequent posts. Public health emergency is the entire point.

It seems to me that legislators are perfectly happy to shirk their duties to avoid any backlash from their constituents.

By enacting policies that could save lies, yes.

By actually trying to save lies by enacting policies, no.

a reply to: Liquesence

After a year, do you still consider this to be an emergency?

To me, an emergency is something that requires immediate action.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Liquesence

After a year, do you still consider this to be an emergency?

To me, an emergency is something that requires immediate action.

Are people still dying in record numbers?

To me, that requires continued immediate and prolonged action.