Not exactly, the authority is derived from laws going back at least 100 years. The links to the actual statues are available in the link I provided previously. I'm reading through some now, and it's a bit scary actually.
“Law” and “statute” are different from each other as a law refers to some common rules made and followed by the society for a long time which are still being followed. These are not necessarily written whereas a statute refers to laws which have been passed as bills by the legislature of a country or have been written down and are consulted for use.
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-law-and-statute/#ixzz6lG2qJc6W
The supreme court has basically already ruled that masking is constitutional. (this is a copy of another comment of mine, but I think it shows the intent of the courts)
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
And this
Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
“no constitutional right is infringed by the Mask Ordinance’s mandate … and that the requirement to swear such a covering has a clear rational basis based on the protection of public health.” More to the point, the Court continued, “constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not … allow (citizens) to wholly shirk their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole…. After all, we do not have a constitutional right to infect others.”
Not exactly, the authority is derived from laws going back at least 100 years. The links to the actual statues are available in the link I provided previously. I'm reading through some now, and it's a bit scary actually.
1 Gov does not =legislative body
The supreme court has basically already ruled that masking is constitutional. (this is a copy of another comment of mine, but I think it shows the intent of the courts)
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
And this
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
yes, opinions
Supreme Court opinions are kinda, you know, important. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx#:~:text=The%20term%20%22opinions%2C%22%20as,Court's%20judgment%20and%20its%20reasoning.