Have you seen a Supreme Court ruling on this matter because I haven't. I think it is reasonable to assume that the SC would allow "some measures" in the name of a health emergency but what do you bet they wouldn't say that 100% of what the Gov. of Michigan did was Constitutional? Originally Posted by HedonistForever"States—and their cities and counties by extension—possess what has long been known as a “police power” to govern for the health, welfare and safety of their citizens. This broad authority, which can be traced to English common law and is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment, is far from radical; it justifies why states can regulate at all.
The police power of the states has been invoked on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court, often in contrast to the limited powers of the federal government—for example, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the 2012 Obamacare case. This power also has been recognized in the context of public health for decades. In a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations, the court observed that “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...navirus-135826
I agree with you that there is a thin grey line between what is appropriate and what is not. The right to impose restrictions is NOT absolute. There seem to be quite a few lawsuits in the pipeline so it will be interesting how courts rule on them.
Governor Whitmer of Michigan has probably been criticized the most of all governors. When, and if, the coronavirus threat ends for the most part, everyone can look back with 20-20 vision and see what actions were more right than wrong, and which were more wrong than right. At this point nothing is conclusive.