 This is another Vicki session, my Institute of Community and International Involvement, which holds the Zoom discussions to keep us aware of political issues and the important issues of our times so that we can think together about how to get out of this mix, I think, that we're in. And tonight is a continuation of the discussion of the US Constitution and how it applies to the current situation. There are many people who are now beginning to protest all around the country about the shutdown and the shutdown of the lock up in their houses and also the denial of certain civil liberties. And the second part of the discussion is also about the economy and what kind of an effect that this practice, the shutdown, has caused to the economy and what kind of problem might recover. And then the third, I guess, is that we're going to have a community discussion about how the pandemic has affected both. And I wanted to start with Jared, who does have a lot of opinions about the Constitution. However, he is also a professor at Vermont Law School and teaches there and teaches about the Constitution. OK, so there's Jared to give us his thoughts. And then I believe Robin wanted to talk a little bit about the economy after that. Is that right, Robin? Yeah, sure. OK, all right, Jared. Great. Yeah, thanks. Good to see everybody again. So what I'm going to try to do with my discussion presentation as it were is talk about constitutional issues, possible constitutional challenges to the existing stay-at-home orders at the state and local level that I've seen cropping up around the country. I don't have an answer as to whether or not this litigation under these particular constitutional provisions is going to be successful in the long run, but you're starting to see them percolate up. And so I wanted to walk through ones that I think are particularly relevant to the economics of what's going on in the country and walk through what the courts have historically done in terms of interpreting challenges to the diminution of liberty interests in the context of public health emergencies and not. Because I think we can get some information from looking at those cases and these issues. So the issues I'm going to cover here briefly are the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I'll touch briefly on privileges and immunities clause and how that intersects and then due process and takings clause of the US Constitution. Because I think all of those go to sort of the economics of this and that intersection between the Constitution and the economics. So Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is a part of the US Constitution that gives the federal government as the US Supreme Court's interpreted it, the power to pass laws on matters affecting interstate commerce, commerce between states and potentially preempting, in other words, overruling state laws on matters that impact interstate commerce. And so it's really a restraint on state action, the state's ability to adopt rules, regulations, and laws that unduly burden this interstate commerce. In looking at the laws that exist at the federal level, sort of this has federal law preempted state laws, it's not apparent to me that Congress has tried to pass any laws that preempt states actions with respect to coronavirus. So there's no federal laws that Congress has passed to preempt governors, whether it's Scott or any other governor in doing what they're doing. So I don't think that preemption issue in the context of the Commerce Clause really applies here. However, the judiciary, the Supreme Court included, has interpreted the Commerce Clause to invalidate state actions that unduly burden interstate commerce. And that's particularly true when we're talking about state laws or regulations that sort of smack of economic protectionism. So when states pass laws to protect workers in their state or to provide economic benefits only to members of residents of that state, the courts tend to look very critically at those. But ultimately in order to be successful if there were a Commerce Clause challenge to say Governor Scott's executive orders, the stay-at-home orders that he's applying and that the local governments are applying as well, including here in Burlington, a challenger would have to show first that there has been state action that impedes interstate commerce. And I think the orders here clearly do that, whether it's the stay-at-home orders, whether it's the ban on visitors from quote unquote, hotspots, clearly there is an impediment to interstate commerce. The second step that the courts have looked at in the context of Commerce Clause challenges is to sort of characterize the nature of the restriction. So for example, when states regulate modes of transportation such as regulations of the size of a semi truck or the length of a train that can come into a particular states, the courts have generally deferred to those state laws as long as the states can show they have a real safety interest at stake. Courts have struck down laws like that if they find that the safety benefit that the state's professing is slight dubious or illusory. So to the extent that there were a challenge the state would have to show and it's a substantial burden that the state has, the state would have to show that the safety interest at stake is not slight dubious or illusory. Otherwise it's possible that that part of the Commerce Clause provision would fall in favor of the challenger. You know, here, again, while it hasn't been tested throughout the court systems yet, there do seem to be obviously safety considerations that the court is unlikely to find slight or dubious. Ultimately, I think what you're gonna be seeing as these case percolate through the court systems is what sort of evidence can states Marshall to show that the safety concerns are legitimate, that they're not slight, that they're not dubious. Those transportation case, safety cases that I talked about that have typically been upheld by the courts haven't been upheld if they appear to discriminate between residents and non-residents. And in this case, Governor Scott's order does do that. So I think that's another open question. How does that facial discrimination, in other words, discrimination based on the language of the order factor in here. And to the extent that it is discriminatory, then the courts will typically apply what's called the strictest form of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, which makes it even harder for the state to show that it's got a law that is narrowly tailored and that there's no less restrictive alternatives. So for example, there's a case from my home state of Maine, that's perhaps relevant here, although not directly on point because we're in unchartered territories, it's called Maine v. Taylor. And in that case, the US Supreme Court upheld an import ban on live bait fish in Maine. And the reason for that was that the court was convinced by the state presenting data that the movement of bait fish into Maine posed a significant threat of parasites of all things that could damage Maine's unique fisheries. And the court also said that so Maine had a substantial interest and that they lacked less restrictive means other than this blanket ban. So the court has given states some leeway in that context. Could I just interrupt and welcome the two new people to the call, Linda Lazarowski? Yeah, good to see you, hi. And Randy Koch, has he come on yet or you have to let him on? Beth, I think. Anyway, so Jared is giving a presentation concerning the constitution and then we'll move on to the economy and other things. Yeah, so I was just chatting a little bit about a possible commerce clause challenge and you are starting to see some of these pop up across the country, two executive orders by governors. So again, sort of reading the tea leaves here, the governor's order doesn't on its face contain evidence of an attempt to give Vermont residents an unfair economic advantage. So that militates in favor of the state. And certainly if protecting local fisheries from out of state parasites can justify impeding say the bait fish industry, then one could certainly argue that slowing the spread of COVID can justify impeding the travel industry. And to the extent Vermont could present evidence that it lacks a reliable mechanism for identifying carriers of the virus, they could argue that there's no adequate alternative means to prevent it. So I don't think these claims are frivolous. I think it's ultimately, they're ultimately gonna turn on what sort of evidence the states that are challenged in can marshal to show that there is a substantial, A, there's a substantial reason and B, that essentially they can justify the action and that they have no adequate alternative approach. And if they can do that, commerce clause challenges are gonna be, I think a steep uphill battle for challengers of stay at home orders that the governors have issued. So that's commerce clause. Privileges and immunities clause, I think is perhaps a little bit more interesting in the context of what Vermont's done. And the privilege and immunities clause is basically language in the constitution that says that citizens of one state should be afforded the same privileges and immunities in other states. And it was adopted as part of the constitution long ago, basically on the premise that if states start discriminating against non-residents, people from other states, it's gonna create friction between the states and the union will collapse under that. And so the privilege and immunities clause is meant to stop that from happening. Some sort of good examples of what the privilege and immunities clause means is say for example, your driver, your Vermont driver's license is valid in California. A judicial order in the state of Vermont is valid in Texas. That's what we mean by privileges and immunities that we give credence to the rules, laws, et cetera, of other states. And so laws or rules that appear to discriminate based on one's residency can be challenged under the privilege and immunities clause. And I think if you look at particularly certain provisions of the governor's order with respect to visitors and visitors from hotspots, it does seem to imply that non-residents, visitors, are prevented from enjoying what's been deemed a constitutional right, free ingress and egress of between states, interstate travel based on their residency. And that's gonna be highly suspect to a court in determining whether or not a particular provision is constitutional, that discrimination based on one's residency. Ultimately the court's gonna get into a balancing test and determine whether or not there's less restrictive means for the states to accomplish the goals that they set out, which ostensibly are to prevent people from hotspots coming in and infecting people in Vermont. But the courts are gonna look much more critically at that particular part of the governor's orders because of that discrimination based on one's status as a non-Vermont resident. So I think that's an interesting one. We'll see where that all leads. I'm not aware of any challenges to this in Vermont, but certainly in other states, it appears to be happening. And by the way, from an economic perspective, that privilege and immunities clause does include rights of economic rights, the ability to conduct business in a state. If a Vermontian can do it, but a non-resident can't, that's certainly something that a court would look critically at in terms of privileges and immunity. So there is an economic impact there. Another area that courts might look at is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That can be used to challenge state actions that are discriminatory. And in some instances, laws have been struck down that impose residency requirements, particularly durational residency requirements that in order to qualify safe for a public benefit, you have to have lived in the state for a certain amount of time. Courts have struck that down, and struck those down in certain circumstances based on Equal Protection. But I think probably an Equal Protection Claim is gonna be a difficult one for challengers because you really do have to show invidious discrimination based on a protected class. So certainly if there was discrimination based on one's race, residency can qualify, gender, et cetera, the nationality, then that would be a different story. That doesn't, as far as I can tell, seem to be happening. But if the data showed that, that people of certain races were being impacted by these orders in a different way, then there may very well be Equal Protection Issues that courts would be interested in looking at. Briefly, due process. So the doctrine of substantive due process essentially requires, and due process is the idea that you can't have liberty interests as taken away without proper process, without proper protections. And so the doctrine of substantive due process typically requires that the government satisfy that strict scrutiny test before they can deprive a person of a fundamental liberty or property right. And the court, the Supreme Court has recognized that right to travel as protected by the 14th Amendment's concept of liberty. And so to the extent that the right to travel between states or within states is impacted, you are starting to see, and I think you probably will see more of these challenges under that substantive due process argument. On the other hand, the court has recognized that the right to travel does not prohibit the government from quarantining, and this is a quote, areas ravaged by flood, fire, or pestilence when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and material interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the nation as a whole. So the court sort of has it on the one hand, this on the other hand, that, but ultimately the state would have the burden of showing that this restriction on travel is because of being ravaged by a flood, fire, or pestilence, and that the restriction on travel to a particular area would directly and material interfere with the safety and welfare of that area. So the state would have a burden of proof and I guess you could say in terms of demonstrating that that is the case before a court would just say, okay, this passes substantive due process. And so ultimately, if that's the case, then to satisfy that legal test, any restriction on the right to travel must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest. So necessary to promote a compelling state interest. And so I think that's the analysis that a court would look at. And whether or not, say for example, banning visitors from hotspots is necessary to protect the lives of Vermonters, you know, I think it's gonna turn on what sort of evidence the state has. One could certainly argue that the visitor ban itself doesn't seem to protect the lives of Vermonters because a Vermonter coming from a hotspot would be just as likely to be a health risk as a visitor coming from a hotspot. So it doesn't seem as though the visitor's prohibition is necessary. And so it may be that in light of that and that right to interstate travel, there might be due process issues as well. Eric, could you stop a moment and see if there are any questions? Sure. Anybody have any questions or thoughts? I do. Grant does. I find I'm not clear on the difference between commerce and travel. Yeah, commerce has to have the actual exchange of goods. We just have to travel to do that. And it's traveling simply on vacation or is there even a distinction? Yeah, yeah, so good question. So there are sort of separate rights. So there is a fundamental right to interstate travel that is protected aside from commerce. So you do have a fundamental right to interstate travel. The commerce clause piece is more of a restraint on state action. So a state can't pass a law that burdens interstate commerce, unduly burdens interstate commerce. So for example, a lot of the civil rights laws that were passed that prevented states from having separate hotels for African-Americans and separate hotels for white people, those were struck down. And part of the reason they were struck down is because the courts concluded that the federal government under the commerce clause has the power to restrict, has the power to prevent hotels, for example, from discriminating under the commerce clause. And that states can't have laws that violate that commerce clause provision. So if the courts found that the ban on visitors to Vermont, unduly burdens interstate commerce, the governor's order could be struck down on those grounds. Alternatively, if the courts found that the state violated folks' right to interstate travel, then the governor's order could be struck down on those grounds. So there's sort of separate sides of a similar issue. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Robin has a question. Yeah, yeah. This is basically a theoretical discussion because, or tell me, has any state actually put up barriers for other people to come into the state and enforced it? It's one thing to say, we don't want people to go here or there, but are there any states where there are barriers and policemen at boundaries saying you cannot come in or you have to jump through this before you can come in? Has that happened yet? Yeah, good question. I mean, I've heard anecdotally and through the news of checkpoints, checking people, their license plates, which certainly would slow the movement of interstate commerce, interstate travel. I'm not sure of anybody being, and maybe others have heard of instances where people have actually, this has been enforced. They say you may not come into Vermont or you may not come into Massachusetts, but the one point I would make is that with constitutional rights, you don't usually have to actually wait till enforcement has happened. So if the government passes a law and you can show that you are very likely to be impacted by that, you can challenge that law even if it hasn't been, you'd have what we call standing, even if it hasn't been enforced against you. So for example, if the state of Vermont passed a law that said individuals of African-American descent may no longer vote, an African-American wouldn't have to wait until they've gone to the polling place and been told they can't vote in order to challenge that law. They have standing to challenge that law. I don't know if others have heard of instances where it's actually been enforced. I don't know if it's enforced, but I did hear maybe again anecdotally that the state of Rhode Island was requiring anybody with certain license plates that entered that that person would be quarantined for 14 days. Well, in Vermont, that's the same as Vermont. Yeah, so that is not an undue burden, you know, think on a... Yeah, I think if somebody wanted to, they wouldn't have to be arrested or fined in order to challenge that in court because it's sort of a prior restraint principle that you can't restrain people from engaging in constitutional activity and they don't have to wait until they've actually been restrained in order to challenge the law or regulation. I don't think, I think all of these constitutional issues we talked about are probably gonna be unlikely to succeed at this point in time in the courts. And we touched on this, I guess, last time a few weeks ago. But as we get further and further along and as more and more states open up and as the federal government changes its stance on things, then you might see instances, and in fact, Attorney General Barr was talking about this yesterday, where the Department of Justice may itself get involved. So if someone sues for not being able to go to a religious ceremony and says that their religious rights have been violated, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Barr is talking about potentially joining those lawsuits. Right, I saw that. Is that it? Yeah, so the climate could change very rapidly in other words is what I'm saying. I think it's going to, especially if Attorney General Barr gets involved. And he did, he said it. He said that the states can't pass any kind of restrictions that violate the constitution and that if they do that the Attorney General will get involved in making him stop. Which I thought was very interesting, you know? Yeah, yeah, and I think again, if you're a court trying to decide these issues, all of a sudden having the Attorney General involved, I think does change the dynamic because traditionally courts are gonna be very deferential and they have been to states managing public health crises. If all of a sudden the federal government comes in and says, well no, the state shouldn't be doing this, then it provides the court with an alternative route. Again, reasonable minds can disagree whether that's good or not, but I'm saying from purely analytical perspective, I think if the Attorney General gets involved, that doesn't change the overall demeanor of any challenges to this. The one other place that I'd highlight, and I think this is certainly an economic issue, is the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. And what the Takings Clause essentially boils down to and you might have heard of it in the context of eminent domain. So, you know, the city or the state or the federal government have the power to seize private property for, you know, public good. And the people that have property seized are due reasonable compensation for that seizure. And I feel like I've read in the news recently, I haven't reviewed cases, but instances where folks are saying that, you know, they, for example, own a hotel or a restaurant, and because of the stay-at-home orders, they're saying that the government has effectively taken their property, that there's no, they have no alternative for economic benefit of that property that they used to have, and that the government has essentially committed a taking without compensation. And I think you're likely to see some of those cropping up. The basic analysis of a taking is, and you can look at it through the context of the Vermont orders, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that a court finds that, say, a non-resident has a property interest in accessing their private property, but they're not allowed to because they're a visitor from a hotspot or they're not allowed to run their business because they are under a stay-at-home order. My sense is that the court is, at this stage, probably gonna subject the government to what we call government-friendly regulatory takings analysis from a case called Penn Central. And I think this is because it's, what the government is doing here is best described as restricting the use of property during a pandemic. And so it doesn't fit any of these specific categories that we call per se takings, which trigger automatically the requirement of recompense. The order in Vermont anyway, it's not a direct appropriation of property because the government isn't actually seizing people's property for its own use. It's not a physical occupation of property, which is another category of per se taking because the government's not entering or authorizing a third party to enter a resident's private property. It's not what we call a Lucas taking and Lucas is a Supreme Court case that we've taken that name from because it doesn't prevent a non-resident from all economic value of their property. Although certainly I think one could argue if you're running a restaurant on Church Street that you can't run anymore, you could certainly argue that perhaps this is depriving me of all economic value of the property. On the other hand, you can sell to go food. So it literally gets down to that level of minutia where the government would probably argue, wow, we haven't taken away all economic value of your property, you can sell to go food even if you can't have people come into your restaurant. So I think a takings clause argument is an interesting one, whether it would be successful, I think remains to be seen I suppose. One other area that I think is interesting and I've sort of just started exploring this, so I don't have entirely developed in my own head, but you've heard the president say, or been very hesitant to use the emergency, I think it's the Emergency Production Act that allows him to essentially take over production of an industry like happened in I think World War II. Yeah, with President Truman did he take over the coal companies or what? Steel, yeah, the steel seizure cases. Yeah, so president has been hesitant to do that and a lot of governors have been saying, well, we might have enough tests now, but we don't have the chemical reagents and we don't have the swabs and some of them have been calling on the president and I think maybe he has done, now used it in some instances, but calling on the president to use that act to essentially take over the means of production. And I started thinking about, do the governors already have that power? Because the governors were saying, we don't have, in fact, it was Cuomo said, I don't have the power to do that under existing state law, we need you, President Trump, to do it. And I started looking into, at least in Vermont, what powers does the Vermont governor have with respect to that? So in other words, could the Vermont, could Governor Scott actually, to the extent we have any swab companies in Vermont, take over the means of production through a taking, through eminent domain? And I feel like, and I can read you guys some of the language from the law, he probably actually does. Again, we can either like that or not, but under 20 VSA section 11, which is the listing of the governor's emergency powers passed by the legislature, it says that the governor has the power to quote, seize, take, or condemn property for the protection of the public or at the request of the president, or his or her authorized representatives, including all means of transportation, all stocks of fuel, whatever nature, food, clothing, equipment, materials, medicines and all supplies, facilities, including businesses and plants, and to make compensation for the property so seized. So I feel like, based on that statute, and to the extent other states have those as well, but they're being a bit disingenuous in saying, we have to have the president do this. While I haven't followed all of the possible rabbit holes on this in reading that statute, it certainly seems to me that governor Scott could make a pretty strong argument that he already has the authority, if he wanted to, to act to take over, say, a swab plant in Burlington down on Church Street. But isn't the argument that, not just for the president to take over the plant, but to coordinate it, that's what people seem to be asking for, to the central office of coordination, and he seems to refuse to do that, or he only wants to give to his friends. I don't know. Who's, who's, who's, hey, Trump, you mean? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, I think that's a fair point, Robin, but again, I would look at, I mean, I think, I think governor Scott ostensibly anyway, and I don't know if these particular provisions have ever been tested in the Vermont Supreme Court, but it says to seize taker-contempt property for the protection of public interest, and includes medicines, materials, and to make compensation. So I think conceivably, he could seize if there was a swab plant in Burlington, he could seize it, he'd have to make compensation to the owner, but seize it and manage the business as he sees fit. And that, there's nothing in there. And if you read a little bit further, it does go on to say, you know, in the case the property is taken for temporary use, the governor at the time of the taking, shall fix the amount of compensation to be paid therefore. And in case such property shall return to the owner in a damaged condition, or shall not be returned to the owner, the governor shall fix the amount of compensation. So it does give, as far as I can tell, the governor pretty broad authority to determine what fair and just compensation is, and to take over a private property along those lines. Again. I mean, didn't that happen in the urban renewal projects? In the- Right, yeah. So if the mayor can or the governor can seize property and turn it into a bike path, it seems that probably they could seize property in the form of a business that's producing, say, I don't know, socks and turn it into a mask factory. Well, didn't Trump actually do that actually recently? I mean, didn't he- Well, Trump did do it with 3M and maybe others know better, but I think he did do it with 3M for masks. And I read somewhere that he maybe had done it now for swabs, but I could be incorrect on that. But this is an interesting side note. And I think it's obviously massive economic implications anytime you have the government taking over private property in that manner. And I think it's interesting from my perspective, in my sort of background, we point to the United States as this pinnacle of private capitalism and we critique other countries that in times of necessity have nationalized public property. And yet in black and white, in our own laws, we have that power described to the state. And so I think that's an interesting sort of side note to all of this. Well, are other states being asked, I mean, why is this happening in other states? Yeah. We have a lot more resources than Vermont to do those kinds of things that we need. Yeah, yeah, I'm not familiar with the emergency powers of governors in other states to be totally frank. Okay, so this is a Vermont. This is a Vermont law. But my guess, I mean, Vermont doesn't make these things up in whole cloth. I mean, my guess is many other states have similar provisions. Although I'll admit I haven't looked at them, but many other states likely have similar provisions. Okay, any other questions? Could we welcome the other, the new two people who came in? I don't know what happened to them. Mark Esther was here for a while. He's there. Right, there's Mark. And Jack Lazarotti, there he is in the background. Yep. Always a bridesmaid and never a bride, Jack, right? Where is he? Anyway, hello, hi. All right, anybody have any other questions? Robin wanted to say a few words about the economy, correct? Is Jared, are you finished? Yeah, no, that was great. And I apologize for droning on for five minutes. I hope it was at least someone interesting and informative. It wasn't it, it certainly addressed issues other than the Bill of Rights, which are also part of the demonstrators who were in Montpelier today are demonstrating not about the commerce class, and about the Bill of Rights, and about the shutdown, which has not allowed them to, as they argued to assemble or to speak freely. That's part of the Bill of Rights. With Jared, I think you were talking about was the actual body of the constitution more than the amendments. The Bill of Rights are amendments, right? Yes, that's correct. Right. Okay, anybody else? Robin. Yeah, okay. Over the weekend, I read an article that really got me depressed. It's by Umair Haake, H-A-Q-U-E. He's an economist in Europe, or in England, I believe, but coming from Asia, probably India or Pakistan. And his article was, we're watching an economy die. I mean, his point is that this gigantic sort of shockwave of unemployment will is really what he calls just the crest of the tsunami, but we have not yet felt the after effects of that. And it will bring a huge amount of destruction behind it. He calls it a chain reaction of ruin. And part of it is just a lack of confidence that someone who had a little business going and he uses an example of micro brewery. Well, all these micro breweries in Vermont, of course, I don't drink beer, but they're kind of an extravagance if you look at a pared down economy because there's plenty of other beers to drink, but he's able, these micro breweries are able to find a niche in the economy and they hire people and so on. And now being closed down, they are going to have a really hard time getting going again and their former employees may have found other work. This guy predicts a lasting decline in entrepreneurship. The risks will be multiplying out of control for someone trying to get back into starting a business and there will be an explosion in gig work. And I heard it on the radio the other day about how people make money now picking up food at the grocery orders that have been put into the grocery to deliver food somewhere. They spend their time in their car, in the parking lot of the grocery store and they, on their app, they pick up the order and who grabs it first. It sounds really very fragile edge to be on and to try to think you could make a life out of something like that. This Hauke says unemployment in America isn't like other countries because of America's ruinous obsolete social contract, most forms of social insurance and benefits are tied to jobs. As people lose whatever jobs they had, the effects are therefore going to be catastrophic. They're not just going to lose their incomes, they're going to lose their healthcare, retirement, childcare and so forth. So he has really a very dire view of the future. He goes on to say that we know that the economy has been divided into a kind of caste system and that's being reinforced and at the top are the owners of techno capital. In other words, the people in charge of those huge companies that everyone is relying on like Amazon and Google and so on, they are getting richer and richer. They're the tiny class of mega billionaires but below that are everyone else and what he calls them the abandoned working class. Life in this class is about technological neo-surfdom. App, the platform, the algorithm is your boss. So this is that, that all the gains of this terrible crisis we're going through will be taken up by the mega rich. You can look it up if you want. We're watching an economy die but that combined with an article from Jared Diamond looking into the environmental crisis and saying that the whole planet will grind to a halt by 2050. I mean, and I believe this is true. This means that our kids and our grandkids and our friends and whatever, they're not going to have, how will they live? Robin, I wanted to ask you, the author of this article, how do you spell his last name? Is it H-A-Y-E-K Hayek? H-A-Q-U-P. Does anyone else know of him? You like to write people on this call. But I do know that that has been my concern since the beginning of the pandemic is basically, well, I've never feared the virus as much as I feared the economic collapse and I see it in exactly the same way that there is now and there will be further economic collapse and the ritual benefit as they always do and everybody else will be put in a position of unemployment and I don't think that we have given enough attention to that at all. I mean, the constant, in fact, has become rather a partisan issue right now, hasn't it? With the president and many of the Republican governors saying we have to open up the economy. Now, if they open up the economy, I'm sure it's gonna benefit the rich as that always does, but it will get people back to work. And if we don't do that, that if we don't get people back to work, then what the hell are they gonna do? I mean, they're gonna sit in their houses and they're eventually gonna starve. And that's what I think is gonna happen. Like I was very concerned yesterday when the CDC announces that they believe that there'll be another huge coronavirus epidemic in the fall, what are we gonna do? Go through this until what, 2021? There's no way that the economy, I don't think the economy has much chance of recovering right now, even. I think Randy has something to say. Yeah, and also Kurt. Okay, Randy. No, I didn't have anything to say. I'm just sitting here taking it all in. I thought you were waving your hand or something. Okay, well, Kurt. No, a false gesture. Yeah, Kurt. No, just to add to Robin's point and Sandy's point with respect to second and third waves. When the economy does open, don't expect a large mad rush to the airlines, to the restaurants, to the stores. I mean, there will be a certain contingent of the population that do that. However, it's not gonna be in the numbers to sustain the economy that we had before. And that's gonna take some time before there is adequate trust in the minds of a lot of people before they re-engage as they did in the past. So that's gonna have a strong impact on the economy also beyond the current situation that we're in. Anybody else? Jared is, Jared's got his hand up. Go ahead, Jared. Yeah, I was just, and also to sort of piggyback off all of these points. I mean, I keep coming back to this at least in my head and I'm not an economist, but look, so much of our economic growth in the past 30, 40, maybe 50 years has been built on debt. And I'm not saying government debt exclusively, personal debt. I mean, if you look at the net worth of the average American now, I think it might even be negative or very close there too. It's only been exponentially growing. We talk about student loan costs that we're burdening young people with. And so a big fear to me is as soon as people can no longer service their debt, we're talking about 22 million people without jobs over the course of a month. That very quickly is gonna have massive impacts on the consumerism in our society and our economy is 70% based on the consumer economy. And so I feel like, yes, I think Sandy, you're very right. When we open the economy, it's probably gonna benefit the rich, but this could be so catastrophic in light of the impact on the consumer economy that this may very well trickle up even to the lords of our economy, the Boeing's, the airlines, the hotel tycoons. I, you know. What are you saying? Do you think that the economy will not recover? I don't think so actually. I don't think so. I don't know. I just don't know. It's a scary proposition, but it's certainly gonna be a long time. Randy does have, Randy? It seems to me that it's worth noting that there are really two economies. There's the finance economy and there's the productive economy. And if the productive economy craps out, then there's no more food for one thing. But if the financial economy craps out, they can correct that with a few keystrokes in five minutes and create enough money to take care of it. Yeah, well, I think what you're saying is it, Randy, that the government can simply transfer funds into bank accounts by a computer, but it's not real money. Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying it's real money in terms of the financial economy. Right. I think Mark has a question too. Yeah, there's a third economy. Which is? It's the defense economy, the war economy. Exactly. And whenever anybody says there's no money, they are bracketing the trillions of dollars that are committed to war making. Right. And I think we have to keep that in mind as a target for bleeding into the economy some funds that people need and keep recognize the enormous storage that's in there. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. You mean that that money will be reduced? That our demands in the problematical condition that we're heading for that Kurt has spoken to and Randy has spoken to and Jared has spoken to that there is this huge, huge pot of money. Yeah, yeah. And we need to know that it's there and we need to aim at getting at it. And not just bracket it. Right. No, I agree. Mm-hmm. Great. However, did you also see today that there might be collision with Iran and the seas? I mean, those are all the things and that of course is with our shipping and our ships in that area of the world. I mean, Trump's plans for war have not diminished in all of this, right? And that is what Mark is saying. That's a huge part of our budget. So that's not collapsing, but that doesn't create a decent economy either, right? It's a war economy. It's the military industrial complex that gets all of our money, exactly, right? And that is not available to anybody. Okay, Ian wants to speak. Yeah, Ian. Yeah, I think the article that Robin was referring to and quoting from was drawing attention to something that's very different in our lifetimes. During our lifetimes is the increase in inequality. We're living in an era now of huge unprecedented in our lifetime income and wealth inequality. And I want to connect us to the positions that Jared was explaining about state law and federal law. But in this case, dealing with the economic consequences of this virus is currently placing huge demands on federal and state budgets. And the federal government is dishing out money and to individuals and to corporations and has the ability to raise credit via a number of means and to pressurize the banks and print money ultimately, maybe. But the state of Vermont, states in general, state of Vermont has very limited options for raising money. And so if we connect the need to raise money with the wealth inequality, this argues for tax the rich, real substantial change in tax law that would provide the resources to handle these extraordinary conditions. So is this in the, in our future, is this is the need for a reorganization of tax law on the state budget gonna happen? Or is it we're gonna brush that one under the carpet somehow? Anybody else have any thoughts on that? You gotta remember that Congress passes tax law. They're not gonna do it. Robin, Robin. Yeah, Sandy and I had a little set to this afternoon about Sweden. And so I looked up what is happening there and she's largely right. I mean, it's really interesting. They have what they call a voluntary lockdown. I mean, they want people to be locked down. Well, it's, I mean, it's like here in most places there is not really gendarmes out there arresting you, except maybe young kids in playgrounds. But anyway, they have a voluntary lockdown. They want to create what they call a livable lockdown. And they have a broader view of health, including mental health, like the impact that this stringent lockdown is having on people living in places where there's no park to go to and so on. I mean, I think people are being driven crazy in some places. So, but I mean, I think Sweden is a unique nation and they have good healthcare and they expect people to be responsible, but they have had 2,000 deaths, just about 2,000 deaths, which is a lot more than Denmark, according to the chart I was looking at, and I don't know the population difference, but it's sort of as if they're saying, we're going, we know that we'll have people dying from the virus, but we expect people to sort of discipline themselves and they have been, although they face a number of deaths. But they did not crash the economy and that's what's so curious here. They left bars and restaurants open and they made it reasonable. You still, you have to go to a bar in Sweden and you have to stand up, you can't stand at the bar, you have to be at a table and you have to distance yourself and similarly in restaurants. So the economy did not collapse. This one did. This one, the economy, and I don't see it ever really recovering. And in a lot of ways, I see that as a collapse of civilization. So it's very, it's important to me, it's important to note that Sweden is a member of the Europe, a member country of the European Union. And I think this makes a really interesting comparison. As far as I can see, the countries of the European Union have a lot of leeway to make their own regulations, restrictions on populations on travel. And in the States, we're seeing individual states saying, well, you know, this is a huge subcontinent with very different conditions in Georgia and in California and Vermont. So, you know, States should be allowed to make their own rules, their own regulations, independent of the federal government. It seems to me, the European Union is already doing that. I don't know how the legal situation differs, but I think it's a really interesting comparison and it raises this question of can States that have very different conditions may craft their own restrictions, regulations? Well, Trump has done that. He has said that, he has given it up to the States. But I think regardless of how we feel personally about Trump, it was a brilliant political move because now he can both blame the governors if it screws up and he can take credit if it doesn't screw up. And you know, either way, he wins, right? He couldn't, I don't think either that he ever had the inclination to have a national shutdown. I don't think he ever really wanted to do that. Anyway, he is, as we all know, a capitalist. He does not want to have an economic collapse on his watch. I don't either, frankly. I don't want an economic collapse. But that to me is what has happened. And every day I go down to Burlington and I see dead streets, empty streets. It's just like Blade Runner or something. It's science fiction. Yeah, to Ian's point about sort of the comparisons between the States and the member states of the EU. I think that's an interesting one. And there's a series of US Supreme Court cases that have given this authority to the States. And so that's why I think we are seeing and will continue to see States take different approaches opening up at different times, opening up in different ways because they are empowered by this series of US Supreme Court cases to do exactly that. And one of the leading cases on this front is a case, I'm probably gonna pronounce it wrong. Sandy and Grant can correct me, but it's Compagnie Française. Yes, that's right. Yeah, and it'd be the city of New Orleans. And that was a case in 1902 where a boat full of Europeans on a boat from France were trying to make port in 1902 in New Orleans and they were denied entry by the state of Louisiana, by the New Orleans health board because of, I think it was yellow fever, some illness that was going around. And the boat was essentially seized and the owner of the company sued the city and the state of Louisiana on commerce clause grounds saying you're burdening interstate and international commerce and that's the purview of the federal government. And the Supreme Court said no, in the context of a public health emergency, it states that have the power to manage and decide what's right for their population. And that's reiterating what the court had said before and has said since in that context, so. Okay, any other thoughts? Well, I think that the considerations of the economy are really, at least that's been on my mind. So I guess that's what I'm asking. Is there any real chance of recovery and what does it mean if we're gonna recover? Are we even going to go back? Okay, there's another thought in my mind. I don't like the status quo. I don't particularly like the status quo that has existed forever in a capitalist economy. However, I believe that until business or until the economy opens, we're not also gonna see any kind of political openings or any return to our civil liberties because in this current shutdown, unless we're out of our house and able to gather and unless we're able to assemble and form an opposition, I just don't think that there's gonna be any opposition. Really, that's very effective. Today there was opposition to Jeb Spaulding's proposal, which I found very interesting. Those people go, what? Well, it's something interesting. What? That was very interesting, yeah. It was really interesting because people were able to push back and get the state college systems reformed or reopened for the fall. It could have been a political ploy on Spaulding's part, but he didn't seem to respond. Sally said that. Sally said that. What do you think? He flatly denied it when he was asked. Of course, he would deny it. Of course he would, right? Be closer, Sally. He flatly denied it. He was asked on the evening news that if that had been a strategic move and he flatly denied it. It was part of the ploy. Yeah, but that's part of the ploy, as Grant said, right? What do you think, Sally? Yeah, well, I think it was very clever. I do think it was very clever. It worked. It worked. It really did work. And he seemed to, it appears that he responded to political pressure from normal people, but I don't see that possibility of having that kind of pressure if everybody's locked down in their house. That's, I think, what worries me the most, especially within the city. I don't see any way that we can organize real opposition to the mayor in the next election, which I would like to see happen. But if we're locked up and unable to even communicate in groups, it's gonna be very tough to do politics. I would just say, I think that, all good points, Sandy. My, I mean, again, I'm not an economist, but my sort of take on it is, I think there will be no politics and no real opposition. Again, we can differ on whether we think there should be opposition or not, that's fine, but I don't think there will be either way until the economic pain is really being felt, until you can't get pork chops at the supermarket, until you've got to wait months for getting eggs, and then I think people are gonna start feeling this. And thus far, people have been out of work a couple of weeks, maybe they've started to get unemployment, so that economic hit hasn't really, really, really been felt. But I think when we start, if we do start seeing those sorts of shortages, those sorts of experiences, then I think there will be real political engagement. And if you look at what came out of the Great Depression, certainly there's flawed pieces to it, but sort of the progressive era that came out of that, is there space for another societal realignment? I don't know, but I think it's possible if we start seeing those sorts of economic impacts. Can I make a couple of comments about the last time that the United States was involved in the Great Depression, but Ian, are you leaving? Is that what you said? I guess he's gone. He's gone. People have said to me over and over, well, Franklin Roosevelt, he got us out of the Last Depression, that isn't quite true or accurate, I should say, by massive government spending, and programs like the WPA Works Preverse Administration, and then also with the CCC and Welfare, Social Security, all of that was started by 1936, and that did create what demand. It gave people who had little money, enough money to reinvigorate the demand side of the economy, right? And there was a mental health component to it also, Sandy. People, something to do with... Yeah, yeah, yeah, like my father. My father was unemployed in 1928, and then he didn't really go back to full-time employment until it's an interesting date, 1941, is when he went back full-time, but he had a chance to work for the Works Progress Administration, and he was a singer, never had been a singer before. Anyway, so, but by 1938, if the unemployment rate in 1932 was like 25%, 25%, right? And then Franklin Roosevelt selected, and he did have massive government spending, but even by 1938, the unemployment figure wasn't really recovered. He had to have massive government spending in order to get back to full employment, and that's why the date 1941 is so critical, because that was the birth of the military industrial complex, and permanent, permanent war. And that is what got the depression over, and that's what got people employed. So then after 1945, the same kind of economy was developed, and that was a permanent military industrial complex economy that we never went back to peacetime, in other words. After World War I, the United States did, but not after World War II. So it's been war that has kept this economy together for a very long time. And I don't want that kind of an economy, certainly. I just don't know how on earth that this crash is going to end. I can't see it, because although Trump is giving all this money, right? Out to companies, but also a little bit to people. First of all, it's not gonna be enough, and it's fiat money. There's no standard. There's no gold standard. He's just printing piles of dough, and I want to know what kind of effect that has on an economy. There's no backing to it. What? What? Fiat money, and there's nothing to back up that money. Mark has no productivity. There's no nothing, what? Mark has a question. Is he gone, Mark? Yeah, no, I have to turn on my mic. I want to take some issue with Sandy's notion that unless you can get out of the house, you don't have a politics. And I think what's on the screen in front of us right now is exactly an example of a new development that we together with our understanding of the technology that's available have made happen, and that what we need to be doing in these times when there are these conflicting things about, you go out, you're asserting your rights, but you go out, you're also threatening other people's health. That we need to think more about stuff exactly like this and how this can be developed into its own version of political action. So for instance, just from my point of view, this hasn't made a big change for me because I'm a writer and a publisher and my wife, we have a publishing company and we spend most of the day in front of our machines and we're making texts available to people. And so that hasn't changed much for us at all. And we make a, like now, I'm making a public appearance without leaving the house, et cetera, et cetera. There's lots we can do without leaving the house. And I think as the culture shifts, that of course also will contain education, how people teach each other and how people learn, how children relate to their own households with respect to being part of the learning, not necessarily going off to school, but reintegrating, being in a family with education. All of that stuff can and will change and is changing and that we have to think of it, not just as a deprivation, but as an opportunity to develop new politics. Well, I have, I've done all this. I think you mentioned this. Right, I agree. Sandy has modeled a lot of that stuff about getting groups together. We've, several people on the screen here have been thinking about Burlington College and replacing it with Vicki and et cetera, et cetera. Those are all available to us. Shelley. I want to mention that the entire protest against Deb's following announcement was organized on Facebook. And as an example. Yeah, but that's those protests on Facebook. I wouldn't deny that this kind of a thing contributes to notifying people about protests, but there were also physical protests about Deb's following with cars. If you remember on Monday. Yeah. That's true, but there are also, there are 100 letters and comments in Laundigger. I know. About the article. It was amazing. It's just not enough. People still have to be able to gather, to protest and resemble. You just have to have that, or first of all, that's the basis of democracy anyway. But Sandy. You don't have politics. Yeah, I'm going to add to Mark's point. I mean, the younger generation, I mean, people in their teens and twenties. Yeah, right. And Jared. And Jared. Is he just 39? Well, yeah. But look at his haircut though. I know. It's 19, he's a 19 year old. But we know that about Jared. No, but I mean, the trend amongst people in their late teens and early twenties is towards being more in the home anyway. They're not as out and about as some of us older folks are. A lot of the work that they do, even if they're not writers or publishers is pretty much at home. Their social lives are conducted largely from their homes. That's a criticism that people have of millennials that they have these cyber existences. But that is kind of becoming a trend more and more anyway, regardless of COVID-19. Can I just make one comment? They're not at their homes. They're in their parents' homes. Right, okay. Or grandparents' homes. Okay. Also, but that isn't really also totally right either because many of them are in the service industry and they are waiters. They're in the gig economy and they have one gig here and one gig. It's not true that they're at home in general. I don't think. They have lousy jobs. I'm just saying that there's a trend towards it. It's not, not ever. This is sped it up immensely. This is sped it up. Kurt's absolutely right. There's a trend toward it. And this is sped it up. I mean, I see it in my teaching. All of the students have moved online. And I think a lot of them are, we were already moving towards that at Vermont Law School but a lot of them are gonna demand that moving forward COVID-19 or not because that was the where things were headed. And this just forced the issue. Right. Well, I think we can do, I think that it makes, I think we can do a lot online and I think younger people are gonna be able to. But on the other hand, it's gonna create a real division between people who have access to this and don't. I mean, I think about the action at the city council a couple of months ago with the farm workers coming to city hall and they have no access to anything like this. Right, right. And they gather, they get together and it's a very active at the Migrant Justice Center. It's their lifeline. So I don't think we should, we can't do it online but I think we also really have to think about how those folks are gonna be able to participate. Yeah, I mean, Beth, there's certainly a classified, you know, folks that you would call blue collar, you know, who actually have to use their hands still in the modern world to work. They're not gonna be in the same position as a writer or a lawyer or someone who can do a lot of their work virtually. So there's gonna be that friction. Yeah. But it's not necessarily friction. All that I was saying, the point that I was trying to make is in as much as we are constrained now, the task falls upon us to develop a politics that can exist and manifest within that constraint. That we're not being deprived of politics. We are being offered an opportunity to figure new ways, this being one of them. Well, no, I couldn't agree more, but that is what I'm trying to do. I know I actually, I do think we have to think about building an opposition still. And that's why I think it's so important that we continue things like this, frankly. But anyway, it's tough to build people who really are less than, I think people are in general pretty hopeless, which bothers me. And so I guess I continue to try to do these Zoom meetings in order to keep up hope that we can still form some kind of a camaraderie, I guess, that will be a true opposition. That's all. And in line with that, by the way, next week is, Robin wants to say something. Go ahead, Roman. Yeah, that's exactly what I want to say is that next week is an interesting discussion, the state of community media, public access TV and the possibility of democracy. And Megan O'Rourke will be speaking, I believe, right? Yeah, will be on the call. And I'd like to introduce what Wilf Disarm is planning, which is we're going to have what we call a history and activism rolling seminar where we look at exactly this year, 75 years ago, it's the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb, but it's also the 75th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations. So that right after World War II, those two really so such important paths were developed for civilization to go forward, either cooperation or domination and they're with us still today. So we're going to have some Zoom calls with, for example, Phyllis Benes about the formation of the United Nations, which happened about in a week or two, 75 years ago and other events during the year. And so this is a way we're trying to respond to what Mark is saying. We have to devise sort of new techniques to communicate to people. So that one and also the last one of the, this semester, Burlington College and the Broad Institute of Community and International Involvement of Phoenix Rising. We need to, I mean, and people need to think of individuals to invite to that session who can bring new ideas in. Some of the people who are involved in the schools that might be, were proposed to be closing to get their ideas to start circulating ideas. Yeah, we have to think of new ways, alternate ways of education, we really do. And that's what this originally started as, is a way to make Vicki into more of an educational institution, I think. Anyway, so anybody have any further thoughts? What's Jared laughing at? Hey, Jared. I've got a secondary conversation with friend texting me, sending me silly videos that I wouldn't want to share with you. All right. Okay. Oh, come on. Another forum. Yeah, okay. Just talking of education, none of us, I think, well, maybe I'm wrong, have young children in the house. Yeah, Jared has. You do, okay. Well, to have the responsibility to educate children now in your home is an enormous field of endeavor and social change. And I think that in addition to stuff like this, which is all like gray hairs, you know, except for Jared. Her doesn't have gray hair. Yeah, but largely gray hairs. There is a world of this material to deal with for people with children at home who that now have to take on the responsibility of either or both educating them or enabling facilitating their use of online resources. So we can't see that here. We don't see the little kids here. We don't see the teenagers here, but they're there and that's a big job for this job. Yeah. Does everybody think this is permanent? I don't. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Can't be. I think things are gonna be fundamentally shifted, but I don't think it's permanent. Yeah. Do you think the economy is gonna recover? That's a good question. I'll defer to the economists in the group. I don't know who's the economist. Anyway. I thought you were, Sandy. No, no, no. I mean, I've read the economists. Some of them is pretty, you know, I've read Marx and Hayek and other libertarians actually. Anyway. Okay. Jack, you have a question. I just wanted to say to that last comment that if you see a direct link between the viral problem that we're in right now and global warming, then the answer is yes, it's definitely with us and it's gonna be with us for a long time. And the more we see that connection, the more likely we are to, I hope, treat both of them with the wisdom that they require for solving. I mean, that might, you know, as a final comment for me, I guess, is that I might even agree with you. I don't think that the shutdown now is the proper response, I guess. I wish we hadn't done that. Well, oil demand is certainly down. Oh no, oil demand is down, right? And pollution levels are down most major cities around the world. I agree, but people are hurting. Really economically, it is really not a feasible situation. Okay, well anyway, so next week we'll be discussing, talking about, because I think also that public access TV is a really educational tool that really should be used. I've not figured out why Lauren Glenn shut down the studio during this period of time. Well, we're doing it here, without the studio. It has not been out to the public though, without the studio. But it can be, because it can be recorded. Okay, Mark, we did it. We have done that. We did it last week. So all I'm saying is that, is that the shutting down of the studio does not stop the function of the community resource. We demand that it be open. It is the media, and that the media is essential service. They never had any reason to shut it down, and I could tell. But anyway, that's a different discussion. But we'll be talking about that next week, and then the week after that, I think it'd be great if all of you join, particularly the week after that, because we are gonna be talking about new educational models, based sort of on the Broenton College model, many years ago. And many of us were involved in that. Jared, Kurt, all of us were involved in Broenton College, right? At one point or another, weren't we? And I was 10 years teaching at Goddard, which, to me, is an enormously important model. What happened to Goddard? Is it there still, or what? Yes, it is. Yeah. Okay. That would be interesting to hear from, Mark. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right, so thank you all for being here.