Can the POTUS sign Executive Orders if he/she is medically sick, such as having COVID-19? It was announced today that President Biden has the COVID-19 virus and he is now receiving medical care for it. Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, and headache. - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html Can the POTUS sign Executive Orders while he/she is medically sick?
The Constitution states the only possible restrictions on presidential power, thus a president can exercise the powers of the office except if dies, is impeached, or the 25th Amendment becomes relevant. If the VP decides to can can get a majority of the relevant principal officers to agree, POTUS can be deemed unable to discharge his duties. Congress has not designated any body other than the executive departments for satisfying that requirement. After the disability is communicated to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, the Vice President immediately assumes the powers of the president. However, the declaration of disability is revoked when the president informs the Senate Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House in writing that no inability exists, and he resumes his powers. Then, if within 4 days the VP and a majority of the cabinet again vote that the President is incapacitated and communicate that decision as above, then POTUS does not resume his powers. If and when this comes up, there will be some discussion about the timing of the re-vote. The amendment says, specifically Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Assuming that the inability is not instantly re-certified, then there are at least two ways to interpret this. One is that the president temporarily re-assumes power until 4 days pass or the disability is re-affirmed. The other is that the president must wait 4 days before re-assuming power (and the VP remains in power). Then SCOTUS will have to decide what the amendment &quot;means&quot;. Assuming that the inability is re-certified within 4 days, then by a vote of 2/3 of both houses of Congress, Congress decides if POTUS is disabled. Specifically: If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. In this case, the language of the amendment makes it clear that the VP becomes acting president. The unclarity is limited to whether, between declarations of disability, actions of POTUS are legal.
Art II, Sec 2, Cl 1 of The Constitution says of the president "and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". The Constitution does not state any further restrictions on the presidential power, and there are no statutory limits, because, as observed in Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control. Accordingly, presidents have written pardons on and with numerous different writing instruments. Insofar as there are no constitutional restrictions beyond the aforementioned, it is not required that a pardon be signed, or that it be on a tangible semi-permanent medium. It is impossible to know what such a pardon tweet would look like, beyond the limit on length. The one place where a presidential signature is required is under the Presentment Clause, that when presented with a bill that passed the two houses of Congress, "If he approve he shall sign it". Such a signature need not be actually written by the president, it may and often is written by an autopen. The question of the legality of autopen signatures for bills has not been presented to SCOTUS, but the Department of Justice has issued an opinion (July 7, 2005) that it is legal. I have failed to locate a repository of presidential pardons (the actual documents), so I do not know if, so far, all presidential pardons were written down and signed, though I would expect it to be so. The Arpaio pardon was signed (or auto-signed), likewise Obama's final mass-pardon on Jan 17, and previous Obama pardons were, but pre-Obama, DOJ does not provide any document.
Force Majeure An event like the current Covid-19 event is what is known as a force majeure event; a Latin term meaning "superior force". It refers to an event that is beyond the control of the parties to a contract such as war, civil disturbance, acts of God and disease. Common law jurisdictions In common law jurisdictions (most of the English-speaking world), force majeure is not a legal doctrine but a creature of the particular contract. That is, the extent to which a contract does or doesn't deal with such events is the extent to which such events apply to that particular contract. For example, a construction contract may specify that a contractor is responsible for the care, protection and reinstatement of the works unless damage is caused by war. So, if the damage is caused by war the principal bears the risk but if it's caused by, say, flood, the contractor bears the risk. If a contract is silent on the matter (in general or in the specific) then the parties obligations remain unchanged by the event and failure to comply is a breach of contract. For example, absent a provision in a contract, in the current pandemic: if a supplier is contracted to supply a component that was made in a foreign country and that cannot now be sourced from there; they will be in breach of their contract if they do not supply it. If it can be sourced from a local manufacturer at twice the price of the foreign source then that is the contractor's loss. if a company is contracted to provide engineering services and their staff cannot travel (either because they are sick or because of government restrictions) then they will be in breach of their contract and the principal can seek damages. if a construction contractor is obliged to finish by a given date and the government closes all construction sites, they will be in breach if they do not complete by that date notwithstanding. These may seem to be unjust outcomes but, at the end of the day, somebody in the contract has to carry the cost of force majeure events and the development of the common law has left it for the parties to decide who. That is, at the time of negotiating the contract, the law allows that if the parties wanted to consider the risks of say, a pandemic, and spell out whose risk that was, they were free to do so and if they didn't that's their own fault - in the absence of such allocation, the parties must do what the contract says they must do. Common law jurisdictions have traditionally not seen it as the role of government to interfere in the details of private contracts. Common law has a much narrower doctrine of frustration but this requires that the principal purpose of the contract be impossible to perform, not merely harder or more expensive to perform. Even much harder or much more expensive. Civil law In civil law jurisdictions (continental Europe with their ex-colonies and most of Asia), force majeure is a legal doctrine. It is a defence to liability where the defendant: had nothing to do with the event - this pandemic would fit, is unpredictable - it is not certain that the pandemic was unpredictable. There have been pandemics before and many organisations around the world exist specifically to respond to them. Lest this seems needlessly pedantic, there have been cases decided that because a flood occurred 69 years ago, this flood was predictable; similarly, an avalanche 50 years ago rendered this one predictable. If predictable, then the defendant is obliged to have prepared for it. The consequences must have been unpreventable. So, even though it exists in civil law it is not a get out of jail free card. International law The UNIDROIT Principles encompass force majeure as follows: Non-performance by a party is excused if that party proves that the non-performance was due to an impediment beyond its control and that it could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.
The 12th Amendment specifies a process in case of failure. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President which means that there shall be a president until the House can reach an agreement. It is therefore possible that the acting president will be president for 4 years if no resolution is possible. If there is no vice-presidential choice either, the Presidential Succession act provides that the Speaker of the House becomes president until the situation is straightened out, which again could be 4 years in the future.
There are 50 separate answers: here is the answer for Wisconsin, which you specifically asked about. The order is here: it cites the fact that Section 323.12(4)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes authorizes the Governor to issue &quot;such orders as he or she deems necessary for the security of persons and property'' during an emergency. The entire section says (4) The governor may do all of the following during a state of emergency declared under s. 323.10: (a) Declare priority of emergency management contracts over other contracts, allocate materials and facilities in his or her discretion, and take, use, and destroy, in the name of the state, private property for emergency management purposes. The governor shall keep records of that action. Those records shall be evidence of a claim against the state. The claim against the state shall be referred to the claims board under s. 16.007. (b) Issue such orders as he or she deems necessary for the security of persons and property. (c) Contract on behalf of the state with any person to provide, on a cost basis, equipment and services to be used to respond to a disaster or the imminent threat of a disaster. (d) Suspend the provisions of any administrative rule if the strict compliance with that rule would prevent, hinder, or delay necessary actions to respond to the disaster. (e) At his or her discretion, waive any fee required by the state for the replacement of a permit, license, approval, or other authorization for a person who resides or is headquartered in the area to which the governor's executive order under s. 323.10 applies and whose permit, license, approval, or other authorization is lost or destroyed in connection with the state of emergency. Thus this is a matter of &quot;security&quot;. The chapter does not define &quot;security&quot;. That order has expired. The state of emergency declaration has been renewed, but there is not yet a replacement mask order on his executive order's page. There are some media claims that the mask order was extended, such as this, which provides no evidence, so it is not clear whether there is any current order (the article also sketches legal issues with renewing the state of emergency). The mask order is only good under a valid state of emergency, which requires legislative approval for an extension (which has not happened).
It is generally understood that governments do have the right to quarantine citizens in case of epidemic outbreaks. In nations with a rule of law, the extent of quarantine regulations may be challenged in court. A challenge against the app has been filed, and trying to second-guess the court by reading sections of the constitution seems to be pointless.
There is no general legal obligations be truthful Such an obligation only arises where specifically called out by law or where there is a relationship of trust between the parties, e.g. they are negotiating a contract, they have a doctor-patient relationship etc. In any event, the President has legal immunity for actions performed as President. Presidents answer for their misdeeds at the ballot box, not the courthouse.
As a result, Bob becomes ill and dies. Could Eve be tried for Murder, Manslaughter, or some other crime, as she chose not to be vaccinated against a disease that she (in-directly) passed on to Bob and killed him? There are basically two distinct issues here. What is the duty? And if a duty was breached, what intent is necessary to breach it? There is not a legal duty to be vaccinated. There is a duty to use reasonable care not to hurt others. The duty not to hurt others could be satisfied by not seeing Bob in person, by wearing a mask around Bob or by having other non-transmission means available, in addition to being vaccinated. But Eve didn't do any of these things. We don't know if Eve had any reason to think that she presented a risk of infection to Bob because she could have passed the virus to him while she was asymptomatic. We also know, by the assumption of the question, that Eve was the source of the infection. But, in real life, proving the source of an infection beyond a reasonable doubt is very challenging or impossible. This must be established for any homicide crime. There is no indication that Eve knew she was transmitting the virus to Bob, or that Eve intended to transmit the virus to Bob (if she intentionally spat in Bob's face intending to infect him that would be a different matter). At most, her conduct was reckless, but if she was asymptotic and has no idea that she was doing something that was actually putting Bob at risk, her intent could be as slight as negligent (for tort law purposes only) or criminally grossly negligent. Since she lacked the necessary intent to commit murder (i.e. either an intention to kill, or an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm), she could not be guilty of the offense of murder. There are three types of voluntary manslaughter in England, none of which apply here: &quot;There are three types of voluntary manslaughter: that resulting from loss of self-control; that resulting from statutorily defined diminished responsibility; and killing in perseverance of a suicide pact.&quot; So, this leaves involuntary manslaughter as the most serious possible homicide offense. Involuntary manslaughter could encompass either reckless conduct (i.e. &quot;the unlawful act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it as an act which must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting therefrom albeit not serious harm&quot;) and is usually in furtherance of some other criminal offense, or in the case of &quot;gross negligence manslaughter&quot;, negligent conduct that is a far greater level of wrongdoing than the negligence that would suffice for civil tort liability. Gross negligence manslaughter is the most plausible charge and is itself a hard call that involves judgement and discretion on the part of the trier of fact (i.e. the judge in a bench trial, and the jury in a jury trial) that is exercised on a case by case basis considering all of the circumstances. Also, to be clear, the wrongful act in a gross negligence involuntary manslaughter case would be transmitting the virus (which could have been prevented multiple ways) and not failing to get vaccinated itself.