They don't have the votes. And this isn't a matter of "implied powers". Police powers are pretty general and can be invoked by governors in state emergencies. The courts - usually - go along with their exercise.
That's true. It is also irrelevant in this situation. State police powers don't violate the US Constitution except under very specific circumstances. And when they are applied the courts usually side with the states when a public emergency has been declared for good reason.
They'll lose.
I don't know where you got this idea. The courts give states a lot of leeway to step around or suspend rights when an emergency has been declared or public order is threatened. And sometimes it doesn't take even that. For example, take a look at:
When they close churches and refuse to allow citizens to congregate, then they are violating the US Constitution, and those are measures that have been taken thus far. In fact, when the Governor of NJ closed houses of worship, he was asked "what about the Bill of Rights?" His response was that he didn't even consider the Bill of Rights. Well, duhh, he HAS to consider the Bill of Rights, because it is part of the US Constitution, and he is bound by law to follow the Constitution. We fought a war in the 19th century over states doing their own thing, and, although everybody says that thing was slavery, slavery was still legal according the Constitution at that time. The war was actually started because the federal government said that secession was not allowed, and they were determined to preserve the Union.
Interesting, but authored by a semi-conductor executive. I'll take Fauci's view personally. Plus, South Korea says Hi, but in fairness, their reaction was a lot more than a lockdown. The key seems to remain testing, isolation, and tracing. A lockdown would be more akin to Wuhan, albeit a brutal one.
Agree as to lockdowns simply delaying the number of infections, but not so sure about total deaths, unless one disregards the reductions via avoiding the healthcare system not being overrun, plus the buying time concept when it comes to therapeutics.
As for being too early to grade Sweden, it's possible that their last week of April's surge in infections will impact the death count about a week or 2 from now, depending on ages of the newly infected people.
Maybe it is not that graph, but the percentage of positive results as the amount of testing has gone up a good bit. Had the testing been at the same rate the number of "new" cases would have dropped. But I don't know what the recommended positive results rates are for opening back up
The quote is directly from the Constitution itself: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript, Article I, Section 9.
I skimmed your link; none of the emergency situations have to do with a pandemic. Actually, none of it has to do with suspending the Constitution. Instead, it says the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is "that only unreasonable searches are prohibited," which leads me back to my original point of stating that I don't believe suspension of any of the constitutional rights due to a pandemic has decisively (or if at all) been tested in court.
In reference to the very recent Covid related Texas abortion rights case, this is what the Appeals Court Justice said:"Jacobson instructs that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency," wrote Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan for the majority.
