Publisher's note: The author of this post is Mitch Kokai for the John Locke Foundation.
Ramesh Ponnuru explains
at National Review Online why he's not as concerned as others about recent comments from the U.S. attorney general.
I am seeing a lot of Twitter outrage and criticism descend on Attorney General Bill Barr for what strikes me as fairly anodyne comments he made on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. The first set of relevant remarks came when Hewitt asked whether federal and state authority over the coronavirus response had collided:
"Well, they can be in tension, and there are potentials for collision. I think you know, when a governor acts, obviously states have very broad police powers. When a governor acts, especially when a governor does something that intrudes upon or infringes on a fundamental right or a Constitutional right, they're bounded by that. And those situations are emerging around the country, to some extent. And I think we have to do a better job of making sure that the measures that are being adopted are properly targeted."
... Hewitt then asked if Barr had seen any state infringe on national commerce in a way that could trigger DoJ action. "Not yet."
Later in the interview, Hewitt presses Barr on the possibility of litigation in federal court against state restrictions. Barr tries to avoid answering what he calls "a general hypothetical bereft of any facts,"
but eventually offers this comment:
"Well, if people bring those lawsuits, we'll take a look at it at that time."
... These are all extremely general statements. In themselves they are not objectionable. What's the attorney general supposed to say? "We'll ignore those lawsuits and we won't try to enforce constitutional rights"?
They're also statements that were elicited more than they were volunteered. They do not bespeak any great eagerness to interfere in state policymaking.
Follow Carolina Journal Online's continuing coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic HERE