No, That's Not How That Works

Now that Biden is the presumptive president-elect.  People are imagining what his policies will be like once he emerges from the basement and sees or does not see his shadow.

USA Today: Biden's approach to tackling COVID-19 will be dramatically different, and quickly apparent

Of course the article argues that Biden will be much more scienc-y in his dealing with Covid 19.  

It claims he will be a much better communicator and of course use the best science.  

But then it really starts to go off the rails and argues he legally can require a national mask mandate:

Biden has said he would be in favor of requiring every American to wear a mask when in a public place or business.

Some question whether the president would have the authority to do that, given the limitations on federal executive power. But Dr. Michael Ewer, a visiting professor in the Health Law and Policy Institute at the University of Houston Law Center, says Biden does.

"He has the power to say we will have a more uniform approach to public health measures," Ewer said. There will be people who oppose that, he said, but "do they have a leg to stand on legitimately? The answer is, from a public health standpoint, almost certainly not."

The answer from a legal standpoint, pace the professor,  is most certainly YES there is a leg to stand on.  So, what legal basis does this professor of Health Law and Policy argues that lets a president enforce a national mask mandate?

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to protect the general welfare, Ewer said, and the courts have generally supported restrictions on individual rights to that end. Seatbelt and no-smoking laws are examples.

Blink.  And this guy is a law professor and he's raising the general welfare clause canard and seatbelt and no-smoking laws as examples? Seriously?

The general welfare clause of the constitution is not a blank check to the Federal Government to do whatever it wishes, it's a spending power, not a regulatory one.  Nor have the courts "generally supported restrictions on individual rights to that end".

Seabelt laws are actually set at the state level and encouraged by the Federal government through threats of withholding funding for related items (highway funding in the case of seatbelt laws).  No-smoking areas are similarly set by the states, or if a federal building the federal government to regulate their own property.

While Biden could conceivably find some constitutionally approved hook to restrict state spending unless in return requiring the states to pass laws for compliance with a mask mandate such as perhaps some medicare funding or such. But, it is not going to constitutionally fly to just claim he can order the entire nation to wear a mask and it can be done under the general welfare clause.

Not that the progressives ever let the constitution stand in their way or anything but this guy is a law professor of all things and really should know better. After all, this is first-year law school stuff.

Sheesh.