I do lose track. And, IIRC, the real role of the Supreme Court may not be well defined under the Constitution.
That said, I believe that the Supreme Court exists to identify when people are, or are not, properly adhering to the Constitution. Perhaps I am wrong on that basic premise.
But I would like the Supreme Court to point to the specific sentence in the US Constitution that says the federal government can make rules about health and travel.
Rejecting this bid seems wrong. I think the Court should feel compelled to weigh in and say, “Naaaaah, the feds have no power to issue a mandate like that.”
Agreed. What was taught when I was in school eons ago was:
1. Legislative branch (i.e., Congress) makes the laws.
2. Executive branch (i.e., the President) enforces the laws.
3. Judicial branch (i.e., the Supremes) interprets the Constitutionality of the laws.
All else was the purview of the states, as per the Ninth & Tenth Amendments.
You're right. The states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate peacetime INTRAstate healthcare policy.
What confuses this issue is the following. Probably many state lawmakers don't understand (blatantly ignore?) the federal government's constitutionally limited powers and consequently fail to challenge federal policy on many issues, probably for fear of losing so-called "federal" funding, unconstitutional federal taxes another issue.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has express constitutional jurisdiction when states disagree on an issue. And since several states have mask mandates, Chief Justice Roberts, by siding with federal policy even though it is unconstitutional imo, has, as a non-medical person, appropriately effectively protected the policies of mask states, regardless that states like Florida have heroically produced evidence that masks are ineffective in at least slowing spread of CV19 virus.
The post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR era, misguided Supreme Court seemingly never checks if a federal policy or law is reasonably based on constitutionally enumerated powers. This wrongly helps to unconstitutionally expand the powers of the already unconstitutionally big federal government imo.
Insights welcome.