Blind Freddy can see that border closures, have helped some states to protect its people, from the Coronavirus
We now have a situation where a private individual, who (if I have interpreted the story correctly), has received the help of the Federal Government, to try and make the closing of one state border, unconstitutional
I do not believe that any legal person, has the right, to override the advice of the medical profession, and force any closed borders to be reopened.
I shall get off my soapbox now, and hope that I have misinterpreted what the story has said
If you ignore the rule of the land, ie the high court, then you have anarchy. We may not like it but without the courts who's opinion do we take notice off?
Tony Bev said
06:05 PM Jul 28, 2020
bgt wrote:
If you ignore the rule of the land, ie the high court, then you have anarchy. We may not like it but without the courts who's opinion do we take notice off?
Hi bgt
I am not a lawyer, but my gut feeling (opinion), tells me, that in this case, we have some people looking for a loop hole
They are using what they hope is a loophole, so that the high court, can order the borders to be opened, to anyone, even those who (unaware), are spreading a virus
Early on in this Coronavirus border hard lockdown, I do remember reading that a state can stop anything detrimental to its people crossing their borders, or words to that effect
This is why some states are able to stop certain fruits, crossing a border
As there is no way to predict, which people from certain areas, have/have not, already caught the virus, and are unintentionally spreading it, then everyone, from that area, should not be allowed to cross the border
My gut feeling (opinion) tells me, that any medical person, worth their salt, will be saying keep border closure/lockdown/ring fence/etc, to eliminate this Covid-19 virus
It has already been proved, in Victoria, and in many other countries of the world, that suppression of Covid-19, did not work
I rest me case, yer onner, and if my opinion means that I shall be painted with the brush of anarchy, then so be it
Dougwe said
06:28 PM Jul 28, 2020
Just make sure you don't use black or white paint mate
-- Edited by Dougwe on Tuesday 28th of July 2020 06:53:02 PM
Tony Bev said
07:07 PM Jul 28, 2020
Dougwe wrote:
Just make sure you don't use black or white paint mate
-- Edited by Dougwe on Tuesday 28th of July 2020 06:53:02 PM
Hi Doug, hope you are keeping well and safe, during this lockdown
It will not be I, who paints myself, as I only look silly plus I always wanted to be able to run fast
It appears that there are only four colours of Anarchy paint, Chaos, Fury, Mayhem, and Upheaval, so alas no black or white paint, so no controversy in this post
I seem to recall that that great Queenslander Clive was suing the WA govt for closing the border.
I read also the he maybe facing some fraud charges which have a potential jail sentence. (don't know what that is all about but of course he carries the presumption of innocence like all of us . Hey)
And now he may be joined by the Fed Govt in his legal action.
We live in interesting times
dorian said
05:12 AM Jul 29, 2020
bgt wrote:
If you ignore the rule of the land, ie the high court, then you have anarchy. We may not like it but without the courts who's opinion do we take notice off?
What does a lawyer understand about medicine, and why should their opinion have precedence in such matters?
Damn you, Clive Palmer. May you burn in hell for putting our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, at risk.
bgt said
08:21 AM Jul 29, 2020
Love it or hate it you must stick with the laws. Don't like the law then have it changed. I could name countries and leaders who ignored the laws and courts. And all hell breaks out. Just look at history.
Cupie said
08:54 AM Jul 29, 2020
bgt wrote:
Love it or hate it you must stick with the laws. Don't like the law then have it changed. I could name countries and leaders who ignored the laws and courts. And all hell breaks out. Just look at history.
You're talking about The Don & his good ole US of A then are you?
Magnarc said
09:02 AM Jul 29, 2020
How many times have we seen the High Court bring down a split decision?, many times I would venture to say. So when these decisions are split that says to me that they are open to interpretation so, this being the case, who's to say which interpretation is the right one?. The majority decision rules but does that make it right??? As for the man bringing this action, methinks he is in the same mould as the present incumbent in the Casa Blanca.
Just sayin........
-- Edited by Magnarc on Wednesday 29th of July 2020 09:11:08 AM
Tony Bev said
02:05 PM Jul 29, 2020
It looks like some people (in my opinion), are really standing out like sore thumbs
I just hope to God, that my interpretation of the story below, is wrong
Copy and paste below
Scott Morrison has defended the Commonwealth's decision to join Mr Palmer's action
As a West Australian, if this is sucessful, then it is a good reason for us to suceed from the federation and tell Clive to go home and never come back. Not the sort of citizen thats desirable here in my opinion.
He is risking our lives for his own selfish concerns because he was not allowed to fly in here under the current lock down and has had a hissy fit like some petulant child.
bgt said
04:15 PM Jul 29, 2020
I can't accept that an individual's opinion over rides the law. Any law. Yes there are arguably many dumb arse laws. But we still have to accept the law of the land. The PM did not endorse Palmers court challenge. He merely conceded that it was likely to be successful.
Whenarewethere said
04:35 PM Jul 29, 2020
Just for arguments sake.
Let's say he does come into the state, then he can be mandatorily housed in a 1 start hotel for 14 days with around the clock policing & provided with 3 meals a day of salad!
Tony Bev said
05:03 PM Jul 29, 2020
bgt wrote:
I can't accept that an individual's opinion over rides the law. Any law. Yes there are arguably many dumb arse laws. But we still have to accept the law of the land. The PM did not endorse Palmers court challenge. He merely conceded that it was likely to be successful.
Hi bgt
I am not a legal man, and if truth be known, I am probably not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw
I realise, that we can all interpret the written word, differently
I also realise that we all have the right to our opinions, based on how we had interpreted, what we had read
Copy and past, how the words were written in the article
Scott Morrison has defended the Commonwealth's decision to join Mr Palmer's action
I will assume that Prime Minister Morrison, is backing Mr Palmers action, to the hilt
Otherwise he could have said, (err in his role) as the leader of the Federal Government
Ear, ang about matey, don't go wasting taxpayers money, joining an individual, in a court case
It will look as though, I am just a politician playing politics
Or words to that effect
Bobdown said
05:37 PM Jul 29, 2020
bgt wrote:
I can't accept that an individual's opinion over rides the law. Any law. Yes there are arguably many dumb arse laws. But we still have to accept the law of the land. The PM did not endorse Palmers court challenge. He merely conceded that it was likely to be successful.
ScoMo has backed Palmer !!!!, by using the turncoat Attorney General Christian Porter, himself a West Aussie, to provide SC with all the Constitutional laws and advice.
Law or not, ScoMo closed down Parliament because he didn't want Victorian MPs coming to Canberra, a hypocrite at best.
Even if Palmer wins, I hope Mark McGowan keeps the border shut anyway.
Cheers Bob
bgt said
06:19 PM Jul 29, 2020
Folks here are now turning this discussion into a political slinging match. Letting political bias influence good common legal debate is a path to no where.
As to Palmers court challenge the legal folks will sort it out, not us bush lawyers. The PM is using Palmer to clarify a constitutional argument. Good for the PM, use Palmers money and not tax payers money.
ALWAYS keep in mind each and every court case has a legal team who wins and one who looses. Both teams believe they are right. And remember that morality is not a part of law. Just facts.
Yes I dislike Palmer. But he may settle the constitutional debate once and for all.
Cupie said
09:22 PM Jul 29, 2020
bgt wrote:
Folks here are now turning this discussion into a political slinging match. Letting political bias influence good common legal debate is a path to no where. As to Palmers court challenge the legal folks will sort it out, not us bush lawyers. The PM is using Palmer to clarify a constitutional argument. Good for the PM, use Palmers money and not tax payers money. ALWAYS keep in mind each and every court case has a legal team who wins and one who looses. Both teams believe they are right. And remember that morality is not a part of law. Just facts. Yes I dislike Palmer. But he may settle the constitutional debate once and for all.
And aren't they all just good blokes doing the right thing for our understanding of the Constitution. LOL
As I mentioned in a previous post ALL of us see things through our own personal prism.
Tony Bev said
12:19 PM Jul 30, 2020
Usual disclaimer, I started this post while standing on my soapbox, but I did not open this post, to give out advertisements, for any particular political party
My position is, that as a person with a home base in Western Australia, with friends in regional South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, I support all border closures, to eradicate the Coronavirus
As I know that this forum is a fantastic place to get information, as many here are friendly, and willing to share what information they have
I would like to ask, two questions, if anyone can answer (in layman speak) please
What is this constitutional argument, I was unaware of
How is it possible for the Federal Government to go to court, with no financial cost to the taxpayers
The PM is using Palmer to clarify a constitutional argument. Good for the PM, use Palmers money and not tax payers money
Apologies to bgt if he thought that I was just trying to be smart, about the constitutional argument
Just to keep a balanced argument/opinion, I have just come across a story, where the PM has mentioned a constitution issue
I read this story to mean, that the PM was a bit miffed, that he was not asked if WA could close the borders, as he obviously (in my opinion), wants them open, for the economy
Link below to the above story, buried in a live news update) today 30 July
-- Edited by Tony Bev on Thursday 30th of July 2020 04:32:37 PM
Cupie said
02:40 PM Jul 30, 2020
RE the applicable 'Law'
Just go to sections 117 & 92 of your household copy of the Au Constitution ...
or
Google Au constitution & state border closures and take your pick of pages of comment.
As to the other question .. It's all smoke, Mirrors & PR \I suspect. or perhaps even BS. LOL
Tony Bev said
04:15 PM Jul 30, 2020
Cupie wrote:
RE the applicable 'Law'
Just go to sections 117 & 92 of your household copy of the Au Constitution ...
or
Google Au constitution & state border closures and take your pick of pages of comment.
As to the other question .. It's all smoke, Mirrors & PR \I suspect. or perhaps even BS. LOL
Thanks for that info, Cupie. It is appreciated
I actually purchased a copy of the Australian Constitution in 1975, but that has long been lost
Section 92 below I have already said that I am not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw But... After reading section 92, I am of the opinion, (my opinion may be wrong), it means that the movement of goods and (Intercourse) of people, between states shall be free of (duties of customs) monetary charges It appears that since the Constitution became law in 1901. That other laws must have been made, to stop anything such as (fruit etc), crossing a state border, if that (whatever fruit etc) could harm that state Looking at states with potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, which will certainly harm that state, much more than a bag of fruit, then the states without potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, will be allowed to keep borders closed
Section 117 below I will assume that the good people who wrote the original Constitution, and the other good people who made changes in 1977, were very very farsighted The probably thought that, if there was a worldwide Pandemic, somewhere in the future The people of those distant times, would lockdown/ring lock/close borders, and then when the Pandemic had died out, they would change the wording of the Constitution, to suit the times, they lived in
The above is my own opinion, and I am not pushing any political party wheelbarrow It does look to me that there is one man who wants the borders open, for his own selfish reasons, with the PM aiding and abetting him
My opinion (gut feeling) is, keep the lockdowns/ring lock/border closure in place, to keep people safe from the Coronavirus
blaze said
04:42 PM Jul 30, 2020
Tony Bev wrote:
Cupie wrote:
RE the applicable 'Law'
Just go to sections 117 & 92 of your household copy of the Au Constitution ...
or
Google Au constitution & state border closures and take your pick of pages of comment.
As to the other question .. It's all smoke, Mirrors & PR \I suspect. or perhaps even BS. LOL
Thanks for that info, Cupie. It is appreciated
I actually purchased a copy of the Australian Constitution in 1975, but that has long been lost
Section 92 below I have already said that I am not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw But... After reading section 92, I am of the opinion, (my opinion may be wrong), it means that the movement of goods and (Intercourse) of people, between states shall be free of (duties of customs) monetary charges It appears that since the Constitution became law in 1901. That other laws must have been made, to stop anything such as (fruit etc), crossing a state border, if that (whatever fruit etc) could harm that state Looking at states with potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, which will certainly harm that state, much more than a bag of fruit, then the states without potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, will be allowed to keep borders closed
Section 117 below I will assume that the good people who wrote the original Constitution, and the other good people who made changes in 1977, were very very farsighted The probably thought that, if there was a worldwide Pandemic, somewhere in the future The people of those distant times, would lockdown/ring lock/close borders, and then when the Pandemic had died out, they would change the wording of the Constitution, to suit the times, they lived in
The above is my own opinion, and I am not pushing any political party wheelbarrow It does look to me that there is one man who wants the borders open, for his own selfish reasons, with the PM aiding and abetting him
My opinion (gut feeling) is, keep the lockdowns/ring lock/border closure in place, to keep people safe from the Coronavirus
You are hereby appointed as a high court judge Tony
cheers
blaze
ps
where do I send the wooly hat/wig
Cupie said
05:21 PM Jul 30, 2020
Tony Bev wrote:
Thanks for that info, Cupie. It is appreciated
I actually purchased a copy of the Australian Constitution in 1975, but that has long been lost
Well buggar me ... you must be a bit odd just like me. I got a copy around then too. No, I got mine in around 1988 along with the reports of The Constitutional Commission which did recommend some changes to section 92 ie remove the second paragraph of section 92, seemingly because of ongoing disagreement among High Court Judges as to the interpretation of that provision. Now there's a novel solution.
Can't find my copy of the Constitution .. must have loaned it out, but I still have the reports. I wounder if my MP will give me a copy along with a new Flag.
Craig1 said
05:24 PM Jul 30, 2020
Transport Drivers will be required to have a Covid test every 7 days prior to entering N S W _ reportedly on radio today, Weekly Times Website, Financial review Website. But if you have a covid test you are supposed to self isolate until results are received. But you cannot get a Covid test unless you feel unwell. Come on Gladys?
Tony Bev said
05:36 PM Jul 30, 2020
Hi blaze
You are hereby appointed as a high court judge Tony
cheers
blaze
ps
where do I send the wooly hat/wig
Thanks for that
I should be right for the white wig, as I shall just let my hair grow
If you can put the wooly hat, and the certificate of high judge-air-he (or whatever it is called), on eBay I shall purchase with PayPal, as my proof of ownership
Whenarewethere said
06:40 PM Jul 30, 2020
Section 92 is about trade. Not movement of a person. A person themselves is not trade, unless you are a slave, & that's not allowed (every though a lot of us feel like it!)
Section 117 states 'disability or discrimination' neither on their own or combined wording apply as Covid-19 is an illness.
So my interpretation is that a person will not be able to enter a State based on these sections of the constitution.
-- Edited by Whenarewethere on Thursday 30th of July 2020 06:46:34 PM
So there you are ... we have solved it all here on the forum. Just so easy to interpret Sect 117 isn't it? Absolutely no confusion.
Soon we will be able to talk about caravaning .. or maybe not so soon.
Whenarewethere said
07:06 PM Jul 30, 2020
Easier to interpret when one has a hard copy!
Tony Bev said
09:03 PM Jul 30, 2020
Whenarewethere wrote:
Easier to interpret when one has a hard copy!
Hi Whenarewethere
I think that I read a while ago, that some lawyer had said, that the words (in section 92) and intercourse among the States, Was referring to people crossing the border
Unfortunately I do not have a link
Cupie said
09:25 PM Jul 30, 2020
Tony Bev wrote:
Whenarewethere wrote:
Easier to interpret when one has a hard copy!
Hi Whenarewethere
I think that I read a while ago, that some lawyer had said, that the words (in section 92) and intercourse among the States, Was referring to people crossing the border
Unfortunately I do not have a link
Was this what you were looking for ..... (Looks like some legal minds think that Sect 92 goes to more than just trade) :-
Movement of people and goods across state borders in Australia is guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 92 of the Constitution says
trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
Intercourse among the States in this context, means the movement of people, goods and communications across state boundaries.
If movement of people across state borders must be absolutely free, can the states hinder or even prevent such movement during the coronavirus pandemic? The short answer is yes.
Absolutely free does not mean what it says. The High Court has accepted that there can be limits if they are reasonable and imposed for a legitimate end, such as protecting the public from a dangerous disease.
In my opinion
Blind Freddy can see that border closures, have helped some states to protect its people, from the Coronavirus
We now have a situation where a private individual, who (if I have interpreted the story correctly), has received the help of the Federal Government, to try and make the closing of one state border, unconstitutional
I do not believe that any legal person, has the right, to override the advice of the medical profession, and force any closed borders to be reopened.
I shall get off my soapbox now, and hope that I have misinterpreted what the story has said
Link to the story below
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-28/wa-may-be-forced-to-open-coronavirus-borders-by-high-court/12495046
Hi bgt
I am not a lawyer, but my gut feeling (opinion), tells me, that in this case, we have some people looking for a loop hole
They are using what they hope is a loophole, so that the high court, can order the borders to be opened, to anyone, even those who (unaware), are spreading a virus
Early on in this Coronavirus border hard lockdown, I do remember reading that a state can stop anything detrimental to its people crossing their borders, or words to that effect
This is why some states are able to stop certain fruits, crossing a border
As there is no way to predict, which people from certain areas, have/have not, already caught the virus, and are unintentionally spreading it, then everyone, from that area, should not be allowed to cross the border
My gut feeling (opinion) tells me, that any medical person, worth their salt, will be saying keep border closure/lockdown/ring fence/etc, to eliminate this Covid-19 virus
It has already been proved, in Victoria, and in many other countries of the world, that suppression of Covid-19, did not work
I rest me case, yer onner, and if my opinion means that I shall be painted with the brush of anarchy, then so be it
Just make sure you don't use black or white paint mate
-- Edited by Dougwe on Tuesday 28th of July 2020 06:53:02 PM
Hi Doug, hope you are keeping well and safe, during this lockdown
It will not be I, who paints myself,
as I only look silly 
plus I always wanted to be able to run fast
It appears that there are only four colours of Anarchy paint, Chaos, Fury, Mayhem, and Upheaval, so alas no black or white paint, so no controversy in this post
Link to the Anarchy paint colours below
https://paintball-online.com/paintballs-grenades/anarchy-paintballs/
I seem to recall that that great Queenslander Clive was suing the WA govt for closing the border.
I read also the he maybe facing some fraud charges which have a potential jail sentence. (don't know what that is all about but of course he carries the presumption of innocence like all of us . Hey)
And now he may be joined by the Fed Govt in his legal action.
We live in interesting times
What does a lawyer understand about medicine, and why should their opinion have precedence in such matters?
Damn you, Clive Palmer. May you burn in hell for putting our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, at risk.
You're talking about The Don & his good ole US of A then are you?
How many times have we seen the High Court bring down a split decision?, many times I would venture to say. So when these decisions are split that says to me that they are open to interpretation so, this being the case, who's to say which interpretation is the right one?. The majority decision rules but does that make it right??? As for the man bringing this action, methinks he is in the same mould as the present incumbent in the Casa Blanca.
Just sayin........
-- Edited by Magnarc on Wednesday 29th of July 2020 09:11:08 AM
It looks like some people (in my opinion), are really standing out like sore thumbs
I just hope to God, that my interpretation of the story below, is wrong
Copy and paste below
Link to the story below
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-29/clive-palmer-highly-likely-to-win-wa-border-challenge-pm-says/12501872
Just for arguments sake.
Let's say he does come into the state, then he can be mandatorily housed in a 1 start hotel for 14 days with around the clock policing & provided with 3 meals a day of salad!
Hi bgt
I am not a legal man, and if truth be known, I am probably not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw
I realise, that we can all interpret the written word, differently
I also realise that we all have the right to our opinions, based on how we had interpreted, what we had read
Copy and past, how the words were written in the article
I will assume that Prime Minister Morrison, is backing Mr Palmers action, to the hilt
Otherwise he could have said, (err in his role) as the leader of the Federal Government
Ear, ang about matey, don't go wasting taxpayers money, joining an individual, in a court case
It will look as though, I am just a politician playing politics
Or words to that effect
ScoMo has backed Palmer !!!!, by using the turncoat Attorney General Christian Porter, himself a West Aussie, to provide SC with all the Constitutional laws and advice.
Law or not, ScoMo closed down Parliament because he didn't want Victorian MPs coming to Canberra, a hypocrite at best.
Even if Palmer wins, I hope Mark McGowan keeps the border shut anyway.
Cheers Bob
And aren't they all just good blokes doing the right thing for our understanding of the Constitution. LOL
As I mentioned in a previous post ALL of us see things through our own personal prism.
Usual disclaimer, I started this post while standing on my soapbox, but I did not open this post, to give out advertisements, for any particular political party
My position is, that as a person with a home base in Western Australia, with friends in regional South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, I support all border closures, to eradicate the Coronavirus
As I know that this forum is a fantastic place to get information, as many here are friendly, and willing to share what information they have
I would like to ask, two questions, if anyone can answer (in layman speak) please
Apologies to bgt if he thought that I was just trying to be smart, about the constitutional argument
Just to keep a balanced argument/opinion, I have just come across a story, where the PM has mentioned a constitution issue
I read this story to mean, that the PM was a bit miffed, that he was not asked if WA could close the borders, as he obviously (in my opinion), wants them open, for the economy
Link below to the above story, buried in a live news update) today 30 July
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-30/coronavirus-australia-live-news-covid-19-victoria-queensland-nsw/12505700
-- Edited by Tony Bev on Thursday 30th of July 2020 04:32:37 PM
RE the applicable 'Law'
Just go to sections 117 & 92 of your household copy of the Au Constitution ...
or
Google Au constitution & state border closures and take your pick of pages of comment.
As to the other question .. It's all smoke, Mirrors & PR \I suspect. or perhaps even BS. LOL
Thanks for that info, Cupie. It is appreciated
I actually purchased a copy of the Australian Constitution in 1975, but that has long been lost
Section 92 below
I have already said that I am not the brightest globe in the knife and fork draw
But...
After reading section 92, I am of the opinion, (my opinion may be wrong), it means that the movement of goods and (Intercourse) of people, between states shall be free of (duties of customs) monetary charges
It appears that since the Constitution became law in 1901. That other laws must have been made, to stop anything such as (fruit etc), crossing a state border, if that (whatever fruit etc) could harm that state
Looking at states with potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, which will certainly harm that state, much more than a bag of fruit, then the states without potential uncontrollable Coronavirus, will be allowed to keep borders closed
Section 117 below
I will assume that the good people who wrote the original Constitution, and the other good people who made changes in 1977, were very very farsighted
The probably thought that, if there was a worldwide Pandemic, somewhere in the future
The people of those distant times, would lockdown/ring lock/close borders, and then when the Pandemic had died out, they would change the wording of the Constitution, to suit the times, they lived in
The above is my own opinion, and I am not pushing any political party wheelbarrow
It does look to me that there is one man who wants the borders open, for his own selfish reasons, with the PM aiding and abetting him
My opinion (gut feeling) is, keep the lockdowns/ring lock/border closure in place, to keep people safe from the Coronavirus
You are hereby appointed as a high court judge Tony
cheers
blaze
ps
where do I send the wooly hat/wig
Hi blaze
Thanks for that
I should be right for the white wig, as I shall just let my hair grow
If you can put the wooly hat, and the certificate of high judge-air-he (or whatever it is called), on eBay
I shall purchase with PayPal, as my proof of ownership
Section 92 is about trade. Not movement of a person. A person themselves is not trade, unless you are a slave, & that's not allowed (every though a lot of us feel like it!)
Section 117 states 'disability or discrimination' neither on their own or combined wording apply as Covid-19 is an illness.
So my interpretation is that a person will not be able to enter a State based on these sections of the constitution.
-- Edited by Whenarewethere on Thursday 30th of July 2020 06:46:34 PM
So there you are ... we have solved it all here on the forum. Just so easy to interpret Sect 117 isn't it? Absolutely no confusion.
Soon we will be able to talk about caravaning .. or maybe not so soon.
Easier to interpret when one has a hard copy!
Hi Whenarewethere
I think that I read a while ago, that some lawyer had said, that the words (in section 92)
,
Was referring to people crossing the border
Unfortunately I do not have a link
Was this what you were looking for ..... (Looks like some legal minds think that Sect 92 goes to more than just trade) :-
Movement of people and goods across state borders in Australia is guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 92 of the Constitution says
Intercourse among the States in this context, means the movement of people, goods and communications across state boundaries.
If movement of people across state borders must be absolutely free, can the states hinder or even prevent such movement during the coronavirus pandemic? The short answer is yes.
Absolutely free does not mean what it says. The High Court has accepted that there can be limits if they are reasonable and imposed for a legitimate end, such as protecting the public from a dangerous disease.
https://theconversation.com/states-are-shutting-their-borders-to-stop-coronavirus-is-that-actually-allowed-134354