Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, WY4Skers' said:

Longtime lurker here, sad to say first post is vastly unrelated to football. "Promote the general welfare" has no substantive value in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution per the Supreme Court ("SCOTUS").

 

The other reference to general welfare is located in Congresses' Spending power somewhere in article I. It qualifies Congresses power to spend and tax. From my limited understanding, it's unrelated to a catch all phrase that encompasses emergency situations. For that, possibly see Congresses "Commerce clause." or the President's emergency powers in article II. The real debate to "providing for the general welfare" relates to the Hamilton view vs. Madisonian view. Hamilton has won out in the longterm as the SCOTUS has interpreted Congresses' ability to tax is not confined to their enumerated powers. They have the ability to tax and spend if it relates "to the general welfare" with a few caveats. 

 

Now, hopefully back to some football. Best wishes all. 

 

So, the federal government has no responsibility to its populous to provide for its welfare?

[Hilltop]

One trend I am really noticing, in general many of us are forming our opinions typically by our local experiences.  In rural Nebraska we have next to no active cases, I'm coaching youth baseball, going out to eat, and living pretty dang normal.  It's easy to think there will be a normal football season.  

 

If you are living in a hotspot, I can understand how opinions would be drastically different.  I just spoke to an old friend this morning.  He has been forced to work from home for over 3 months.  His area has widespread active cases with no sign of it slowing down.  He doesn't think there is any chance we play this fall.

 

Regardless of location, I am talking to more and more people who disagree with the society protection methods.  I don't believe it's the governments job to protect us from ourselves.  Imo, each individual should have the right to make decisions about their own health.  By all means, wear a mask, limit exposure time etc if you so choose.  To me, that means that individual players should be given the opportunity to choose whether or not to play.  Most of these kids want to play football and I believe we should let them play.      

[WY4Skers']

13 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

So, the federal government has no responsibility to its populous to provide for its welfare?

No, post related to 1) "promoting the general welfare" 2) as it related to U.S. Const. 

 

Gov't has "power" but "responsibility" is a completely different term, albeit with much overlap. 

[84HuskerLaw]

35 minutes ago, WY4Skers' said:

Longtime lurker here, sad to say first post is vastly unrelated to football. "Promote the general welfare" has no substantive value in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution per the Supreme Court ("SCOTUS").

 

The other reference to general welfare is located in Congresses' Spending power somewhere in article I. It qualifies Congresses power to spend and tax. From my limited understanding, it's unrelated to a catch all phrase that encompasses emergency situations. For that, possibly see Congresses "Commerce clause." or the President's emergency powers in article II. The real debate to "providing for the general welfare" relates to the Hamilton view vs. Madisonian view. Hamilton has won out in the longterm as the SCOTUS has interpreted Congresses' ability to tax is not confined to their enumerated powers. They have the ability to tax and spend if it relates "to the general welfare" with a few caveats. 

 

Now, hopefully back to some football. Best wishes all. 

Agree.  Congress doesnt exercise the police powers by taxing - spending.  President really holds the policing type authority via statutes re: crime and national security / border protection and so on.  Governors via State powers have more say in public safety as such, but subject to Constitutional limits.  Congress and Pres have some control to open up the economy via the commerce clause but really, imo, these are emergency kinds of issues and hard to find a legal theory to say that any governmental power includes the power to destroy businesses and take property etc without congress passing a law as such which doesnt unduly violate rights or fails to justly compensate.  

Lets play football!   

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Agree.  Congress doesnt exercise the police powers by taxing - spending.  President really holds the policing type authority via statutes re: crime and national security / border protection and so on.

Congress holds a lot more power than just the purse. Congress has the power to create, revoke, or amend statutes. The executive branch can only police the statutes as defined by Congress.

[Undone]

I think what you'll start to see play out is the fear of liability start to dictate the conversation. We could have this conversation as it pertains to commerce in general and then how it pertains to the business of college football.

 

Goes without saying that "it's all about money." A phrase that gets used ad nauseum but is nevertheless so true. The legal teams of the NCAA and universities are no doubt scurrying to find that sweet spot where revenue hovers comfortably over the amount of estimated, potential litigation damages/payouts (that will undoubtedly occur, make no mistake).

 

This is going off topic slightly but still an example: We're seeing this right now with Lincoln Public Schools' decision they just announced to force all students to wear masks this year. This is obviously not some altruistic and good-hearted "let's all band together to stamp out Coronavirus" effort; it's about avoiding max pain from litigation by the teachers' union. It's so that they can say "we did everything we could" if/when they wind up in court because a teacher got a respiratory illness.

I'd say this angle of limiting liability needs to be kept in mind in the context of the football season for sure.

[teachercd]

17 minutes ago, Undone said:

I think what you'll start to see play out is the fear of liability start to dictate the conversation. We could have this conversation as it pertains to commerce in general and then how it pertains to the business of college football.

 

Goes without saying that "it's all about money." A phrase that gets used ad nauseum but is nevertheless so true. The legal teams of the NCAA and universities are no doubt scurrying to find that sweet spot where revenue hovers comfortably over the amount of estimated, potential litigation damages/payouts (that will undoubtedly occur, make no mistake).

 

This is going off topic slightly but still an example: We're seeing this right now with Lincoln Public Schools' decision they just announced to force all students to wear masks this year. This is obviously not some altruistic and good-hearted "let's all band together to stamp out Coronavirus" effort; it's about avoiding max pain from litigation by the teachers' union. It's so that they can say "we did everything we could" if/when they wind up in court because a teacher got a respiratory illness.

I'd say this angle of limiting liability needs to be kept in mind in the context of the football season for sure.

Yeah and to avoid issues with students and their families suing too.

 

 

[Undone]

14 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah and to avoid issues with students and their families suing too.

 

 

 

Yep.

 

Although I think the teachers' union can bring max pain though because they have the financial resources to go all out in court. 

With students, they could easily create a waiver form process so you could opt out - but there's obviously a reason they aren't doing this. Well, they say they are if you have a doctor's note and fit a certain criteria - but the average kid won't be able to use the waiver option.

 

The reason for this is obvious: So that if they wind up in court facing off against the teachers union they can say "We did everything we could."

[84HuskerLaw]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Congress holds a lot more power than just the purse. Congress has the power to create, revoke, or amend statutes. The executive branch can only police the statutes as defined by Congress.

Well mostly but there are some inherent powers in the exec branch as commander in chief / national defender in chief in effect and head of the DOJ.   Again mostly with regard to national & foreign issues. Insurrection and rebellion vs states or citizens by states, etc. But mostly fed statutory. 

 

Enough about this.  Ultimately its the people who have the power of freedom assured by Constitution if only our courts and police will follow then.  Shaky at best these days it seems.  

[Cdog923]

3 hours ago, WY4Skers' said:

No, post related to 1) "promoting the general welfare" 2) as it related to U.S. Const. 

 

Gov't has "power" but "responsibility" is a completely different term, albeit with much overlap. 

 

Except the Constitution has been interpreted backwards and forwards multiple times since the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. 

[Cdog923]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Keeping in mind that from a public health perspective, someone walking around with a highly contagious disease deserves all the rights and protections afforded a drunk driver. 

[Undone]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Keeping in mind that from a public health perspective, someone walking around with a highly contagious disease deserves all the rights and protections afforded a drunk driver. 

 

What/who were you responding to specifically, Guy?

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

 

This is going off topic slightly but still an example: We're seeing this right now with Lincoln Public Schools' decision they just announced to force all students to wear masks this year. This is obviously not some altruistic and good-hearted "let's all band together to stamp out Coronavirus" effort; it's about avoiding max pain from litigation by the teachers' union. It's so that they can say "we did everything we could" if/when they wind up in court because a teacher got a respiratory illness.

 

It might actually be an altruistic attempt to band together and stamp out the coronavirus. 

[Undone]

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It might actually be an altruistic attempt to band together and stamp out the coronavirus. 

 

True - it's possible.

 

But based on on a lifetime of information on how this country operates - especially at this level - I highly doubt it's the primary motivation.