You can certainly make an argument that these measures satisfy "strict scrutiny" as being both necessary, as well as the least restrictive means possible to accomplish the goal. I merely hope we can agree on the correct framework for evaluating whether State and Local quarantine measures are constitutional or not.

To be clear, I believe any State or Local regulation limiting freedom of assembly (which necessarily involves freedom to assemble publicly) whether it be for health reasons or otherwise, has to pass "strict scrutiny" which is the legal term for how high the bar is set to prove the measure is Constitutional. In these cases it is incumbent on the government to prove the measure should be deemed Constitutional, which is flipped from how it normally is.

To quote Wikipedia;

1. that the law is necessary to a "compelling state interest";

2. that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose;

3. that the law uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.

The legal cases you link to are specific actions taken against individuals. An executive order ordering the quarantine of a single person. A mental health examination of a single person. None of them involve blanket orders against large populations.

The news articles are editorials, including the following quotes;

> "Pandemic is not a magic word that instantly negates all individual constitutional rights," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "A pandemic gives states a compelling state purpose in the imposition of restrictions. But when the state denies or restricts constitutional rights, it must satisfy a balancing test." The orders can be challenged on the basis that they're overly broad, he said, or that they don't properly weigh the individual restrictions against public health threats. Turley pointed to Michigan, a state he thinks has an order broad enough that it could be challenged.

I used the latter as a means of criticizing the former - if these measures were unconstitutional by definition, it would be impossible for them to survive strict scrutiny even in theory. Even AG Barr's memo concedes their legality, while warning about the potential of abuse.

Otherwise I think we're in violent agreement.

Totally disagree with: "By definition, these aren't constitutional rights violations."

So I think we do probably violently agree, and I probably misinterpreted your: "These aren't constitutional rights violations by definition." statement.

Another way to think about it is that they obviously do violate Constitutional rights, but this is actually allowed only under very specific and limited circumstances, of which COVID may in fact be one of, but such a thing has never been tested in front of the Supreme Court as far as I'm aware.

An example would be how children aren't allowed in establishments whose sole purpose is to sell adult restricted items like alcohol or pornography.

For the first time in history, everyone is locked down during a pandemic? Yes.