I'm not remotely a lawyer... so I know nothing about any of this.

I understood the quoted clauses during a declared 'national emergency' to be essentially as described by Lad here.... That in the case of such an emergency, that all sorts of things that weren't normally allowed (like a draft or other such things) are allowed. Note though that even the draft these days allows 'contentious objectors', in addition to medical or religious. And that the left and ACLU were the ones that championed that.

The question for me has therefore become... is the situation 'compelling' enough to warrant the intrusion? Frankly, I really don't see that it is. This isn't Ebola. It's 'super-flu' (both in impact and transmutability). It is a virologists job to talk about preventing spread of disease, but it isn't nor should it be the job of the government to create a sterile nation where people are assured to not pass things to each other... suspending our liberties in order to accomplish it. YES, they should go to some lengths to educate and encourage... but to require? Even 'arms length'? If this were Ebola, spreading like this... I'd say yes. It's not. It's not remotely close.

I DO agree though Tanq... when Trump 'closed borders' to slow the spread, something he is specifically charged to manage, the left screamed. Now the left wants more open borders, but closed stores, schools and homes.... something they are NOT specifically charged to manage. It's CRAZY.

ETA... I also understand and appreciate the 'prove a negative' argument as being a poor one/deflection. I DO think that the person seeking change is responsible to demonstrate that the change is allowed... and its not up to the person seeking status quo to prove its not. The proof that most things that don't exist aren't allowed to exist is their lack of existence. All powers not granted to the government are reserved. If it used to exist or exists in a different form, that's POTENTIALLY evidence that it's allowed.