It didn't have to be this way

Symbolism over substance.

And HERE is the biggest disconnect between the hardcore left with TDS and the right who still believes in the Constitution. The President does not have the authority to do this. Him telling me to wear a mask is no more legally binding than YOU telling me to do it. The best POTUS can do is sign into law a bill the Congress (which means the combined House AND Senate) sends to him or her for approval, and even then there are some very valid Constitutional questions.

The President doesn't pass legislation. That's Congress' job.

 

Trump sent people sick with Corona there without quarrantine procedures, against the advice of the CDC.

They got hit early and hard because of it.

Texas and Florida have themselves to blame.

 

OTOH you say "symbolism over substance"; and then you say that an EO on mask wearing is not in the President's authority.

Trump can't make you wear a mask, but he could wear one himself and say he thinks we all should.

But what the hey, Trump finds the mask uncomfortable, or finds it makes him look "weak" or it gets in the way if he wants to sexually assault an underage beauty queen or whatever. That's a perfectly good reason to subject anybody within 6 feet of him to the risk of an agonizing death. Just like the fact that some people want to go bowling is a totally adequate cause for killing off an an entire generation of the elderly, the very young, and anyone with a compromised immune system.

Conservatives LITERALLY make me sick.

 

Unlikely.

" In Koa v. Hogan, a group of military veterans alleged harm from association with capture on the battlefield and “subservience to the captor,” a meaning the court held not to be “overwhelmingly apparent.” More to the point, the court stated, “Requiring necessary protective equipment be worn to engage in certain public activities is simply not the equivalent of mandating expressive conduct.” Face-covering requirements regulate conduct, not speech. The State of Maryland had established a rational basis between the order to cover faces in public areas and the legitimate public interest in protecting citizens against COVID-19."

But could that translate into a federal mandate?

Th answer is yes.

First, "Jacobson v. Massachusetts counsels judges to afford wide latitude to the judgment of health experts, so long as such measures are neutral, generally applicable, and have a medical necessity a government can justify."
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/face-covering-requirements-and-the-constitution/

One approach would be the strongarm, threaten to withold aid if a state doesn't comply with a CDC mandate to require masks.

But there might be room, under the president's emergency powers, to mandate masks. I will grant you this, it would make for an interesting case.

 

You say they went home?
Haven't heard Texas or Florida trying to blame anyone

 

In this specific case, the symbolism of trump wearing a mask would result in the substantive benefit of tens of thousands of his followers, if not millions, being more prone to wearing masks and thus reducing the spread of the virus.

I absolutely agree that the legality of any such law that directly orders you to wear a mask would be questionable, in the best of circumstances. There are potential work arounds, in that he could issue orders that provides sticks and carrots for wearing masks, but the mere fact that he signed the order would likely result in tangible alterations to the behavior of many Americans. And that is the end goal.

You did not need to say that fact, just like I do not need to say that Trump putting his political capital and his bully pulpit behind a specific policy means that it is much more likely that Republicans would support the policy and thus, much more likely, that the policy would result in actual legislation.