> no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them.

Clearly, yes.

> it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.

The Supremacy Clause fairly explicitly disagrees.

yes, but the supremacy clause applies only to laws written within its (federal) jurisdiction, as enumerated in the constitution (and amendments). the battle there, of course, is how much jurisdiction can be finagled under the interstate commerce clause and the like.

In your opinion, has COVID-19 had any effect on interstate commerce? Or is interstate commerce the same as it was this time last year?

all commerce, including the interstate kind, has slowed down due to the pandemic response, but that certainly doesn't mean that the interstate commerce clause should be invoked for covid (or in many other cases that it has been employed by the federal gov't). that power should be reserved for things like collusive, coercive, and anti-competitive behavior, its intended purpose.

for epidemiological concerns, the public health services act is the relevant federal legal framework, as @dragonwriter mentioned elsewhere.

however, a national mask mandate is a political ploy unlikely to lower infection rates materially vs. less visible and harder-to-enforce mitigations. it's polarized pangeantry, being pushed to put some points on the political board and coalesce power. anyone who cares about getting past the pandemic should punish such ineffective partisan behavior in favor of real meaningful, targeted, and effective measures--start with focusing on private social gatherings, the primary vector of spread (and completely unrelated to interstate commerce), not meaningless public displays of compliance.

> all commerce, including the interstate kind, has slowed down due to the pandemic response, but that certainly doesn't mean that the interstate commerce clause should be invoked for covid (or in many other cases that it has been employed by the federal gov't). that power should be reserved for things like collusive, coercive, and anti-competitive behavior, its intended purpose.

> for epidemiological concerns, the public health services act is the relevant federal legal framework, as @dragonwriter mentioned elsewhere.

The Public Health Services Act is almost entirely an exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. (Some bits of it may be grounded elsewhere, but that is the main source of authority for the Act.)

You can't really say it's the right statutory authority and say that the Commerce Clause should not be invoked in this context.

> "The Public Health Services Act is almost entirely an exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause."

some quick research reveals that the federal quarantine powers of the PHSA are largely restricted to state and national borders. so that's indeed based (partly) in the commerce clause, protecting trade across borders from destabilizing forces. but the 5th & 14th amendments (due process and equal protection) also contribute, as does the necessary and proper clause (allowing the fed to use unenumerated powers to carry out its charter, and only its charter, when necessary and proper).

but a true national quarantine, where people are confined to homes or communities, and other proposed national measures (like a mask mandate) would require broader powers that go beyond the commerce clause, and that was the (unstated) common understanding from which i was arguing from before.

i still find this use of the commerce clause troubling, as it's just another stepping stone in the consolidation of power away from states to a future autocrat. the commerce clause is meant to curtail human-induced distortions on interborder trade, not pandemics.