NO MORE Masks while boarding!!!

[Hoosierpop]

Just now, BlerkOne said:

That is how Carnival restarted cruising last summer. Then came Delta and then came Omicron and the sequel. Masks come and go following the science and data, not individual choice. When another wave of the virus hits, look for masks to return. It is exactly what the data clearly shows.

Except the science has shown that mask mandates have not stopped the spread. People can wish it to be true. But math is math.

 

Is it possible that masks can again be mandated on Carnival ships? Sure. But it won’t be based on science. It’ll be based on wanting to appear to be doing “something” about it.

 

Again, this is so simple. Wear masks if you want. I don’t care. I don’t judge. It doesn’t affect me in any way. Just let me make decisions for me.

[Knights on the Beach]

Knock it off before you get another thread locked.

 

Effective immediately, COVID-related discussion should be limited to actual policy on board ships (and other forms of travel) and its practical application.  Discussion should NOT veer into opinion or debate.

 

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

1 hour ago, CruisingAgain said:

Just off the Carnival Legend yesterday in Baltimore and we had to wear masks to debark. Once off the ship you are not on Carnival anymore - you are in the port and that is US federal agency.  They require the masks - just like on other transportation (planes, etc.).  

 

Just off the Liberty this morning, no masks required in the terminal.

 

I had inquired, prior to our departure last week, to Port Canaveral regarding the policies in the terminal (#3 in this case). They did reply, but a bit late:

 

Each cruise line has their own mask protocols when they have control of the terminal.
 
 

Tom

 

[ScottsSweetie]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

Not exactly. When the court tossed the mask mandate at the Federal level, it falls back to the states. It's the law.

That's not what we've been told for the last 18 months or so.

 

We were told that airports are controlled by the TSA, which is a federal agency. The TSA mandated masks, so masks it was. Masks were not required anywhere in the state, but airports and seaports were exempt from local laws. 

 

If the TSA is no longer enforcing masking, then the locals cannot make a law for masks to be worn in airports, because there will be no enforcement. And just above, we've been told by Tom-n-Cheryl that the cruise lines have the authority over the rules in the embark/debark ports, not local laws. And as Carnival has already posted on their own website that masks are optional in those areas then it seems as if it is settled for now (until the appeal).

Edited April 25, 2022 by ScottsSweetie

[icft]

10 minutes ago, Tom-n-Cheryl said:

 

Just off the Liberty this morning, no masks required in the terminal.

 

I had inquired, prior to our departure last week, to Port Canaveral regarding the policies in the terminal (#3 in this case). They did reply, but a bit late:

 

Each cruise line has their own mask protocols when they have control of the terminal.
 
 

Tom

 

I think we could have different mask requirements at different ports. I believe the terminals are under what is called "concurrent jurisdiction." That means the the feds, the state and local government all have jurisdiction. Essentially that means local law applies unless it is in conflict with state or federal law. State law would apply unless in conflict with federal law and federal law always applies.

 

So in the case of masks local law would apply unless higher level government law were in conflict, etc.

 

So when the feds mandated masking, that overrode any local or state law, or lack thereof. If there were a state mandate requiring more stringent measures (such as something like requiring not just a mask but a N-95 mask) then both laws would be in effect since the state law would not be in conflict with the federal mandate - it would be the same "plus," and the plus would not be in conflict with federal law.

 

When the fed mandate disappeared the state mandate still stood.

 

It is not a question of one level of government having sole authority.

[ScottsSweetie]

6 minutes ago, icft said:

I think we could have different mask requirements at different ports. I believe the terminals are under what is called "concurrent jurisdiction." That means the the feds, the state and local government all have jurisdiction. Essentially that means local law applies unless it is in conflict with state or federal law. State law would apply unless in conflict with federal law and federal law always applies.

 

So in the case of masks local law would apply unless higher level government law were in conflict, etc.

 

So when the feds mandated masking, that overrode any local or state law, or lack thereof. If there were a state mandate requiring more stringent measures (such as something like requiring not just a mask but a N-95 mask) then both laws would be in effect since the state law would not be in conflict with the federal mandate - it would be the same "plus," and the plus would not be in conflict with federal law.

 

When the fed mandate disappeared the state mandate still stood.

 

It is not a question of one level of government having sole authority.

So who will enforce it at the airport, since the TSA has stated that they will not? And who will enforce it at the embark ports, because those people report to federal authorities, not state authorities? And, on a side note - LAWS are passed by Congress - this was never a law and is part of the reason that the judge cited in her decision that it was an overreach.

Edited April 25, 2022 by ScottsSweetie

[icft]

20 minutes ago, ScottsSweetie said:

So who will enforce it at the airport, since the TSA has stated that they will not? And who will enforce it at the embark ports, because those people report to federal authorities, not state authorities? And, on a side note - LAWS are passed by Congress - this was never a law and is part of the reason that the judge cited in her decision that it was an overreach.

I agree about laws, I was just using the term as part of the illustration of how concurrent jurisdiction usually works.

 

The enforcement would be by the level of government with the requirement. For example you may have noticed local police at your airport. But as a practical matter the management of the facility will tell folks to comply and call police if necessary just as with any other local law in effect such as for theft, assault. etc. You probably noticed that when there is an unruly air passenger they usually get turned over to local police.

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, ScottsSweetie said:

That's not what we've been told for the last 18 months or so.

 

Not by me you weren't.

 

1 hour ago, ScottsSweetie said:

 

We were told that airports are controlled by the TSA, which is a federal agency. The TSA mandated masks, so masks it was. Masks were not required anywhere in the state, but airports and seaports were exempt from local laws. 

 

TSA enforces, they don't make the policy. Airports and seaports are not exempt from local laws. Federal law supersedes local law. In the absence of federal law, state and local law prevails.

 

1 hour ago, ScottsSweetie said:

 

If the TSA is no longer enforcing masking, then the locals cannot make a law for masks to be worn in airports, because there will be no enforcement. And just above, we've been told by Tom-n-Cheryl that the cruise lines have the authority over the rules in the embark/debark ports, not local laws. And as Carnival has already posted on their own website that masks are optional in those areas then it seems as if it is settled for now (until the appeal).

Of course local law can mandate masks. It would be questionable who would enforce. I've never been in an airport where there weren't local police, however.

[Lane Hog]

 

 

4 hours ago, ScottsSweetie said:

Exactly!  We've all been told that terminals and airports are federal property that must follow federal rules (local rules do not apply).  They have used that rule to pass the buck to the feds all this time - now they want to say only local rules apply and ignore the feds. 

 

Not quite.  With the exception of perhaps a few military islands mostly in the Pacific, airport or cruise terminals are [b]not[/b] Federal property.  They are mostly owned by local port authorities or directly by municipalities, with a few owned or leased by the cruise companies or a consortium of cruise companies.  Either way, they are not Federal.

 

3 hours ago, ScottsSweetie said:

So who will enforce it at the airport, since the TSA has stated that they will not? And who will enforce it at the embark ports, because those people report to federal authorities, not state authorities?

TSA simply manages the screening of people and baggage.  If a local mandate exists, it's able to be enforced by city/airport/county/state police patrolling the terminals similar to other mandates e.g. smoking in the terminal or having open alcohol in the public seating areas.

 

3 hours ago, ScottsSweetie said:

And, on a side note - LAWS are passed by Congress - this was never a law and is part of the reason that the judge cited in her decision that it was an overreach.

 

True at the Federal level, however some states and cities did pass mandates thru their legislatures, and a few State/County health authorities were found to be empowered to order masking while CDC and TSA were not.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Lane Hog

[icft]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

Laws are passed by legislatures. Whether federal, state, local, whatever.

 

The mask mandate wasn't a law - it was policy created by CDC as the public health arm of the government, chartered by Congress. No comment on the unqualified judge.

Not quite right. Only under a law can the government deny liberty, compel or forbid action, or impose fines or punishment.

 

Some laws empower governmental agencies to enact rules or regulations that have the force and effect of laws. Those rules and regulations, promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act, can not exceed the law the agency is charged with administering. Rather they are meant to put the public on notice as to how the law applies to certain situations. The rules and regulations do not have a life of their own. For example, if the law under which the rule were promulgated were found invalid the rule would also be invalid. 

 

Rules are often found to be invalid due to not being properly promulgated or for exceeding the law to which they pertain. But properly promulgated rules that do not exceed the scope of the law are enforced under the power of the underlying law.

 

Policy is an informational statement that has no power. If a policy says the agency will require or deny something any enforcement action has to be under a law and its accompanying rules or regulations. 

[cruisingguy007]

8 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

This is why mandates are necessary.

 

It's always the people who don't have to enforce "mandates" that always insist/tout mandates and laws that are not feasible or practical. It's always starts with "they should" or "someone should". Mandates with no teeth are pointless and unenforceable. It's easy to vote to put businesses, shop keepers etc into harms way, it's another thing to get out there and put some skin/teeth/bones/legal liability etc in the game and actually deal with the consequences of pointless mandates. You'll quickly see my point. Good luck cowboy! 

Edited April 26, 2022 by cruisingguy007