California’s attorney general defends virus shutdowns
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — What would normally be broad constitutional protections for freedoms of assembly, religion — even buying guns — may be curtailed when they endanger others during the coronavirus pandemic, California’s top law enforcement officer said in an interview.
The state has been sued over all three during its shutdown as government officials pick winners and losers in deciding which businesses and activities can operate and which can’t.
But in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Attorney General Xavier Becerra said officials have broad authority to do what they think is necessary to slow the spread during the virus pandemic, even if that trumps normal fundamental freedoms.
“The Constitution remains in place,” Becerra said. “The Constitution — U.S. and our state constitution — has provisions in it that address emergencies like this. And so I don’t think there’s any doubt that for the protection of people’s not just their health but their lives, our government must take actions which protect our communities and the individuals in those communities.”
Three Southern California churches this week sued Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials including Becerra, saying the state’s social distancing orders violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and assembly.
A lawsuit last month by libertarian economist and actor Ben Stein argues that California’s unprecedented stay-athome orders have effectively created a “soft police state” that put 40 million residents under the equivalent of indefinite house arrest, violating guarantees of freedom of assembly.
And several groups representing gun owners or buyers have filed multiple lawsuits alleging that some officials are restricting Second Amendment and other constitutional rights.
People still have the right to practice their religion, Becerra said, but “no one is entitled to endanger the life of someone else simply so that he can extend the exercise of his or her religion beyond means that would now start to
capital to enable retention of jobs held by low-and moderate-income persons. HUD considers a job to be permanent if it is sustained for a minimum of two years.” City staff is only looking for Council direction on how to use the funds, and to direct staff to bring back necessary documents to utilize the CDBG funds.
The final scheduled matter is the approval of the continuance of the proclamation of local emergency due to COVID-19. At the last meeting, the Council reviewed the status of existence of local emergency, and acted to continue its resolution of proclamation. Staff is now looking to the Council to receive the report of status and review of the Proclamation of Local Emergency, determine if the need exists to continue the declaration, and take action and/or provide direction to city staff as deemed necessary.
Before the Council moves to the public hearings and scheduled matters, each Council member will be given the opportunity to report on any recent meetings they attended. These reports will include updates about the Tulare County Task Force on Homelessness meeting, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District board meeting, and the Tulare County Association of Governments and Transportation Authority meeting. Council reports will be followed by updates from city staff regarding the status of the city’s water conservation and an update on the acceptance and issuance of proclamations.
Once all of the reports have been given, the Council will open oral communications. At this time, any submitted comments will be read aloud to the Council by city staff.
After oral communications is closed, the Council will move to the consent calendar. The consent calendar currently sits at 10 items. Council members can request to pull items from the consent calendar for further discussion. A complete list of the consent calendar items up for Council approval can be found at the end of this article.
The first item set for Council discussion on Tuesday evening is the appeal made by a Zoning Administrator in regards to a Request for Proposal (RFP) that was submitted for a retail cannabis dispensary operating permit.
According to the staff report, “On March 31, 2020, the Zoning Administrator issued a determination to Authentic Porterville that the application for a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) did not meet the submittal requirements by failing to register as a plan holder through the Public Purchase webpage. The RFP stated in Section II Summary of Cannabis Request for Proposals, as well as Section IX Submittal Instructions, ‘No proposal shall be received from an applicant who has not registered as a plan holder on the Public Purchase website.’ As a result of failing to register as a plan holder, staff was unable to open and review said application and the materials were returned.”