Phase 2 CDC....Here We Go!

[DAllenTCY]

The regular gangways lead into wide open spaces with a multitude of elevators and stairways.

 

The Deck 1 or Deck 0 gangways usually lead to very small areas with only a few lifts and one staircase.

 

I can't imagine 3 - 4,000 people with luggage trying to get off or on using only the lower deck gangways.

 

David

[caribill]

16 hours ago, Woobstr112G said:

Some of the phase 2A guidelines are absolutely absurd. It is absolutely pathetic what they are doing. One point says embarking & disembarking passengers cannot occupy the same terminal within a 12 hour period. The CDC is doing their absolute best to destroy cruising in the USA.  
 

Bob

 

I'll believe this is in the interest of protecting the public from Covid-19 when the same rule applies to airline terminals.

[Steelers36]

41 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I'll believe this is in the interest of protecting the public from Covid-19 when the same rule applies to airline terminals.

Huh?  There's some sort of 12-hour rule at airports now?  I don't think so.  We flew into FLL at end of DEC and terminal was crowded with arriving pax and departing pax waiting to board.

 

[caribill]

12 minutes ago, Steelers36 said:

Huh?  There's some sort of 12-hour rule at airports now?  I don't think so.  We flew into FLL at end of DEC and terminal was crowded with arriving pax and departing pax waiting to board.

 

 

No there is not.

 

I was pointing out that the CDC is inconsistent. Need to keep arriving and departing passengers from being in the same areas for 12 hours at cruise ports but not at airports.

[Steelers36]

10 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

No there is not.

 

I was pointing out that the CDC is inconsistent. Need to keep arriving and departing passengers from being in the same areas for 12 hours at cruise ports but not at airports.

Okay.  I didn't get it from your original post.  I did think you were positing an inconsistency/absurdity, but it didn't quite read right.  

[Grego]

18 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Source?

It was broadcast on Fox News yesterday.  There have been rumors that our governor has threatened to file a lawsuit against the CDC to open up the US ports for cruise ships.  Don't know if that had any impact on the decision.  Maybe common sense and the preparations that industry has made led to this decision.

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, Grego said:

It was broadcast on Fox News yesterday.  There have been rumors that our governor has threatened to file a lawsuit against the CDC to open up the US ports for cruise ships.  Don't know if that had any impact on the decision.  Maybe common sense and the preparations that industry has made led to this decision.

Well, from what I've seen, Fox News has it wrong.  While the CDC has issued further instructions for cruise lines to meet, there is no timetable, certainly not July.  And, IMHO DeSantis' threat, even if it came to a lawsuit, would not have any standing, since the CDC is not interfering with a business in Florida, where he has jurisdiction, but in granting clearance to enter US waters, which is a Federal jurisdiction.

[Daniel A]

41 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, from what I've seen, Fox News has it wrong.  While the CDC has issued further instructions for cruise lines to meet, there is no timetable, certainly not July.  And, IMHO DeSantis' threat, even if it came to a lawsuit, would not have any standing, since the CDC is not interfering with a business in Florida, where he has jurisdiction, but in granting clearance to enter US waters, which is a Federal jurisdiction.

But the ships are allowed into U.S. waters to enter port and resupply.  What CDC is doing is blocking those very same vessels from selling passage.  That would seem to be affecting the bottom line of the state.  JMHO

[Daniel A]

19 hours ago, Grego said:

Great news a few minutes ago saying that the CDC has issued a conditional start of cruising in July from US ports. Still a lot detail to consider and work to be done, but we have pulled down our suitcases and keep our fingers crossed.

 

This story may be what you heard.  Norwegian has submitted plans to the CDC requesting a US start up for July 4.  I don't really think its going anywhere but it's worth a try.

 

Norwegian Cruise stock surges after plan submitted to CDC to resume U.S. cruises in July - MarketWatch

 

 

[Steelers36]

1 hour ago, Grego said:

It was broadcast on Fox News yesterday.

 

29 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

This story may be what you heard.

Yes, sometimes when watching or listening to TV, we aren't paying full attention and may miss some key words.  I found article(s) yesterday where there was some speculation about being able to start sooner, but certainly no decision by CDC at this time.

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

But the ships are allowed into U.S. waters to enter port and resupply.  What CDC is doing is blocking those very same vessels from selling passage.  That would seem to be affecting the bottom line of the state.  JMHO

It is two very different things when submitting a passenger manifest for clearance, even for a small ship, compared to submitting a crew manifest, even on a fully crewed cruise ship.  Crew will have submitted to the requirements set out by the CDC for all ships, and can be controlled via their employment, where passengers are a lot less controllable.  While denying the ship's to sail with passengers does impact the state's bottom line, the right to impose restrictions on entering US waters is a federal right, and for the most part, states can only sue the federal government when something the federal government does impinges on rights granted to the states by the federal government.  The jurisdiction to clear ships into US waters has never been granted to the states, going back to the Constitution.

[Jadn13]

Have seen the NCL July 4th ask story floating about today.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Jadn13

[nocl]

11 hours ago, Daniel A said:

This story may be what you heard.  Norwegian has submitted plans to the CDC requesting a US start up for July 4.  I don't really think its going anywhere but it's worth a try.

 

Norwegian Cruise stock surges after plan submitted to CDC to resume U.S. cruises in July - MarketWatch

 

 

From listening to Del Rio on CNBC the media is using the term plan rather loosely, just as they called the  Healthy Sail report that listed potential methods a plan.  The way the interview sounded it is another request for the CDC to drop the requirements and referenced a number of protocols that could be used in a vague way, but unfortunately not a detailed plan put forth as an alternative.

[Tolkmit]

13 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It is two very different things when submitting a passenger manifest for clearance, even for a small ship, compared to submitting a crew manifest, even on a fully crewed cruise ship.  Crew will have submitted to the requirements set out by the CDC for all ships, and can be controlled via their employment, where passengers are a lot less controllable.  While denying the ship's to sail with passengers does impact the state's bottom line, the right to impose restrictions on entering US waters is a federal right, and for the most part, states can only sue the federal government when something the federal government does impinges on rights granted to the states by the federal government.  The jurisdiction to clear ships into US waters has never been granted to the states, going back to the Constitution.

 

You misunderstand how the Constitution works. States are not granted rights by the Federal government; they automatically have all rights unless/except for the ones the Constitution specifically takes away from them and grants to the Federal government. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States.

 

DeSantis has several options for legal challenges to the status quo. Primarily under the concept of proportionality, which is part of the 8th Amendment, though also some jurisdictional challenges. His ability to win is irrelevant. The following is what matters: He has enough legal legs to stand on to warrant a Court having hearings about the matter (this isn't guaranteed, but being under a conservative district court, is highly likely.). If so, he can easily prove that the Conditional Sail Order is causing daily harm to the State of Florida by, for instance, not allowing fully vaccinated cruises to resume. At that point, the CDC would have to immediately testify and prove, in court, that allowing fully vaccinated cruises poses a graver risk to society than the harm not doing so is causing to the State of Florida. They can't do that. Both because they don't have any science backing up that assertion, and because it would be a political and public relations nightmare that Biden would never allow his AG to even attempt to commit. At that point, an injunction would be issued which would prevent the Conditional Sail Order from stopping fully vaccinated cruising (for instance), until the legal matter could be decided by the Court. Which, with appeals etc, would take longer than the Conditional Sail Order is set to last anyways.

 

It's extremely unlikely DeSantis could get the entire CSO struck down. But it is quite likely he could get injunctions against part of it. 

[Grego]

3 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

 

You misunderstand how the Constitution works. States are not granted rights by the Federal government; they automatically have all rights unless/except for the ones the Constitution specifically takes away from them and grants to the Federal government. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States.

 

DeSantis has several options for legal challenges to the status quo. Primarily under the concept of proportionality, which is part of the 8th Amendment, though also some jurisdictional challenges. His ability to win is irrelevant. The following is what matters: He has enough legal legs to stand on to warrant a Court having hearings about the matter (this isn't guaranteed, but being under a conservative district court, is highly likely.). If so, he can easily prove that the Conditional Sail Order is causing daily harm to the State of Florida by, for instance, not allowing fully vaccinated cruises to resume. At that point, the CDC would have to immediately testify and prove, in court, that allowing fully vaccinated cruises poses a graver risk to society than the harm not doing so is causing to the State of Florida. They can't do that. Both because they don't have any science backing up that assertion, and because it would be a political and public relations nightmare that Biden would never allow his AG to even attempt to commit. At that point, an injunction would be issued which would prevent the Conditional Sail Order from stopping fully vaccinated cruising (for instance), until the legal matter could be decided by the Court. Which, with appeals etc, would take longer than the Conditional Sail Order is set to last anyways.

 

It's extremely unlikely DeSantis could get the entire CSO struck down. But it is quite likely he could get injunctions against part of it. 

Excellent response.  I feel that what he is trying is putting some legal standing on getting CDC to change its position and in concert with the cruise lines showing that they have complied with the protocols put in place by the CDC should be enough to swing a decision in favor of resuming sailing from the US ports.

[Roberto256]

On 4/4/2021 at 7:16 PM, DAllenTCY said:

The Deck 1 or Deck 0 gangways usually lead to very small areas with only a few lifts and one staircase.

 

 

um ... the lowest decks are below the waterline.

This may make those gangways hard to use.

 

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

You misunderstand how the Constitution works. States are not granted rights by the Federal government; they automatically have all rights unless/except for the ones the Constitution specifically takes away from them and grants to the Federal government. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States.

 

Regardless of the semantics, and the definition in your last sentence quoted above was only derived in an amendment (9th).  Not sure how you would define setting standards for health clearance into Federal waters (outside 3 miles, inside 12, though the regulation of all navigable waters of the US are under federal jurisdiction, right up to the cruise terminal dock) is a punishment to the state of Florida, therefore giving it legal standing, under your proportionality clause.  Or, is it a "punishment" of the cruise lines?  Then it becomes an issue between the federal government and a foreign entity upon the high seas, and therefore admiralty law, and therefore federal law, and again I don't understand how a state would have standing.

[PaperSniper4]

5 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

 

You misunderstand how the Constitution (is supposed to) works. States are not granted rights by the Federal government; they automatically have all rights unless/except for the ones the Constitution specifically takes away from them and grants to the Federal government. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States..........

 

 

Unfortunately, that seems to have been ignored by the federal government and tolerated by the states since at least the mid 1800s.

 

Doug

[GonzoWCS]

5 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

 

You misunderstand how the Constitution works. States are not granted rights by the Federal government; they automatically have all rights unless/except for the ones the Constitution specifically takes away from them and grants to the Federal government. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States.

 

DeSantis has several options for legal challenges to the status quo. Primarily under the concept of proportionality, which is part of the 8th Amendment, though also some jurisdictional challenges. His ability to win is irrelevant. The following is what matters: He has enough legal legs to stand on to warrant a Court having hearings about the matter (this isn't guaranteed, but being under a conservative district court, is highly likely.). If so, he can easily prove that the Conditional Sail Order is causing daily harm to the State of Florida by, for instance, not allowing fully vaccinated cruises to resume. At that point, the CDC would have to immediately testify and prove, in court, that allowing fully vaccinated cruises poses a graver risk to society than the harm not doing so is causing to the State of Florida. They can't do that. Both because they don't have any science backing up that assertion, and because it would be a political and public relations nightmare that Biden would never allow his AG to even attempt to commit. At that point, an injunction would be issued which would prevent the Conditional Sail Order from stopping fully vaccinated cruising (for instance), until the legal matter could be decided by the Court. Which, with appeals etc, would take longer than the Conditional Sail Order is set to last anyways.

 

It's extremely unlikely DeSantis could get the entire CSO struck down. But it is quite likely he could get injunctions against part of it. 

Nice synopsis

[Tolkmit]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Regardless of the semantics, and the definition in your last sentence quoted above was only derived in an amendment (9th).  Not sure how you would define setting standards for health clearance into Federal waters (outside 3 miles, inside 12, though the regulation of all navigable waters of the US are under federal jurisdiction, right up to the cruise terminal dock) is a punishment to the state of Florida, therefore giving it legal standing, under your proportionality clause.  Or, is it a "punishment" of the cruise lines?  Then it becomes an issue between the federal government and a foreign entity upon the high seas, and therefore admiralty law, and therefore federal law, and again I don't understand how a state would have standing.

 

Only derived in an amendment? You realize constitutional amendments supersede literally every other law in the land, right? And it wasn't derived from the 9th amendment, it is almost a word for word quote of the 10th amendment.

 

Anything the federal government does which causes undue hardship is, legally speaking, a punishment. That's just how it works. The federal government is not allowed to cause undue hardship to the states. In order to enforce any law, the Federal government has to be exercising powers granted to it in the Constitution, and be doing so in a fair and just manner. What counts as "undue hardship" or "fair and just" is and has always been the jurisdiction of the courts. This means DeSantis has the ability to challenge the federal government, in court, because that's just how constitutional law works. It's the way pretty much every modern Presidency has had courts strike down some of what they've tried to do. And as I already explained, if DeSantis chooses to challenge specific parts of the Conditional Sail Order as causing undue hardship to the state of Florida, the onus is then on the CDC to justify those parts of the CSO. At that point, it doesn't matter that the Biden administration could likely, ultimately, win the court battle; because it would force them to publicly, legally take a untenable position politically. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Tolkmit

[Daniel A]

49 minutes ago, PaperSniper4 said:

Unfortunately, that seems to have been ignored by the federal government and tolerated by the states since at least the mid 1800s.

 

Doug

It would appear so, but rather than shoving things down the throats of the states, the Feds learned how to use the carrot and the stick.

[broberts]

6 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

 

 

It's extremely unlikely DeSantis could get the entire CSO struck down. But it is quite likely he could get injunctions against part of it. 

 

Would not the Supreme Court decision upholding a federal "travel ban" in 2018 suggest very little chance of success for such a suit? Both sides can legitimately claim irreparable harm so the basis for granting the state an injunction seems weak.

[USCcruisecrazy]

9 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Would not the Supreme Court decision upholding a federal "travel ban" in 2018 suggest very little chance of success for such a suit? Both sides can legitimately claim irreparable harm so the basis for granting the state an injunction seems weak.

I'm not following your logic here.  Can you elaborate how these two instances are similar?  The Travel Ban upheld in 2018 denied immigration from 5 specific Muslim countries that support, financially, international terrorism.  I don't believe any state had a legitimate argument that this policy caused unfair and undo hardship economically to that state by denying their entrance.  Or am I misunderstanding your comparison of the two issues?  Thanks in advance! 

[Daniel A]

12 minutes ago, broberts said:

Would not the Supreme Court decision upholding a federal "travel ban" in 2018 suggest very little chance of success for such a suit? Both sides can legitimately claim irreparable harm so the basis for granting the state an injunction seems weak.

Of course, there is a huge difference between the President (the top elected official) issuing a ban and an appointed director of a sub agency (not even a cabinet member) issuing his/her own ban.  Even the President needed to justify his actions to the Supreme Court, why shouldn't the CDC director need to do so as well?

[broberts]

16 minutes ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

I'm not following your logic here.  Can you elaborate how these two instances are similar?  The Travel Ban upheld in 2018 denied immigration from 5 specific Muslim countries that support, financially, international terrorism.  I don't believe any state had a legitimate argument that this policy caused unfair and undo hardship economically to that state by denying their entrance.  Or am I misunderstanding your comparison of the two issues?  Thanks in advance! 

 

Did not the ban cover travel from certain countries? Regardless, the main connection I see is that in both cases the state is challenging actions by the federal government that are unquestionably in areas of federal jurisdiction.

 

13 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Of course, there is a huge difference between the President (the top elected official) issuing a ban and an appointed director of a sub agency (not even a cabinet member) issuing his/her own ban.  Even the President needed to justify his actions to the Supreme Court, why shouldn't the CDC director need to do so as well?

 

I don't believe the President had to justify his actions to the SCOTUS. Just had to show that the actions were entirely within federal jurisdiction.