The CDC did what it thought was pragmatically the best thing to do considering the political reality at the time.

What's that, undermining rule of law and the integrity of the system? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You don't 'pragmatically' step outside of your constitutionally and/or legally defined boundaries. That is definitionally not pragmatic.

But the CDC's emergency authority delegated to it by Congress is incredibly broad and puts almost no limits on their powers.

If that's true then that's a problem. There are worse things than getting sick.

like what, revolutionary land reform?

the eviction moratorium was implemented because the alternative was a good fraction of the population getting evicted on a very short timescale. the legal and police infrastructure to carry it out simply did not exist, and any attempt would have been overwhelmed with refusal and defensive organizing.

any solution would have been problematic and disruptive to property rights. the CDC exceeding their authority just provided some realpolitik deniability for elected officials, and prevented open revolt.

If that's true, I disagree that it's a problem. Congress gave it this power, if you don't like it, vote for a different congress.

> There are worse things than getting sick.

Disease control codes are as old as law. We live in a society, and part of keeping society running is keeping it healthy.

But not to the exclusion of all other concerns.

The language in the ruling also suggests it was the length of time which caused the court to believe the motivation had to do with financial policy more than public health policy. It is not that the CDC has no authority, just that they exceeded it.

Any such move by Congress would also be challenged as an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause).

It's also very difficult to justify under the commerce clause I imagine.

That said, the US constitution is an interesting beast, because of the Supreme Court's very very progressive interpretation of the commerce clause.

The Supreme Court has a very large amount of discretion in these things.

There was also a rather creative argument based on the Third Amendment (quartering of troops), assuming at least some of the tenants were soldiers.

I don't think this is an important point. There's no law allowing it.

If the "government" wanted something enough, they could get a supermajority together in congress and amend the constitution to make literally anything legal. But they haven't, in this case, done so.

You are forgetting about the (often ignored) Tenth Amendment.

Congress could eliminate the tenth amendment anytime it had a supermajority... there's no clause in the constitution that cannot be amended.

I'm not sure such a proposal would fly. It would be overtly acknowledging the policy shift toward a federal power grab. There would be some resistance and perhaps even some re-balancing of federal/state powers in the end.

As long as the Tenth is there, it is part of the constitution which all elected officials have sworn an oath to uphold.

Not by itself. It must go through the States via the ratification process.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

But Congress is not part of the government branch, it is part of the legislative branch.

There isn't a "government branch". The is legislative, executive, and judicial. They are all "the government".

I think GP has a misunderstanding involving the difference between 'government' in the American English sense versus in other countries[0]:

> In the United States, "government" is considered to be divided into three branches; the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) which makes law, the Administration (under the President) which runs sections of government within the law, and the Courts, which adjudicate on matters of the law. This is a much wider meaning of "government" than exists in other countries where the term "government" means the ruling political force of the prime minister and his/her cabinet ministers (what Americans would call the Administration).

I believe usually in countries with a parliamentary system, the government refers specifically to the executive branch, and neither the legislature nor the judiciary.

[0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/government#Usage_notes

It's not just a technical distinction, the executive is under much stricter rules than the congress, which is only bound by the constitution (although it can also change that, with some extra steps).

The debt ceiling is a great example. The executive cannot spend what congress hasn't authorized.

I was explaining that there is no "government branch", but as someone else pointed out that may have just been a translation error.

What you say about spending is correct. And, yeah, the differences between the legislative and executive branches are important and more than technicalities.

I wouldn't say the executive branch is under "stricter rules" than the legislative branch. It just has different rules and different responsibilities.

The legislative branch creates laws. The executive branch enforces/executes laws. The judicial branch makes sure those laws are constitutional and identifies their limits/scope.

Of course there is some gray area as congress likes to give some of its powers to the executive branch so that they can say "that wasn't my idea" to unpopular ideas.

Rather than make a law that says "forget about all that rent from last year" they would more likely make a law that says "someone in the executive branch has the power to say: forget about all that rent"

The other route would be for the judicial branch to say the executive branch already has that power... But they just said it doesn't.

And that's how the wheel of government turns... In the US

This is neither coherent not correct.

If it isn’t coherent, how can you tell?

Well, thanks for explaining.