05/02/2020
THE COVID VIRUS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Some people say they don't have to abide by the Covid 19 virus "stay-at-home" rules because the Constitutional rights to Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly override them. Others say the rules are the proper exercise of the State's Police Power because there is a serious, deadly emergency that requires them. Each side's argument sounds right, but they conflict. Why? Is this any way to run a country?
It is a great way to run a country. Because it requires those those who decide extreme measures to actually think carefully them and to balance different provisions of the Constitution that sometimes conflict. But it does leave a lot of confusion as to what the law is at any particular moment in time.
As you can see right now, different leaders make completely different decisions after balancing one Constitutional right against another. The Governors of Michigan and New York say the danger of the virus justifies the use of the Police Power to order businesses to close and people to remain inside. Others, like the Georgia and Texas Governors say that the Bill of Rights is so important that they justify exposing everyone to the Covid 19 virus to preserve them.
All these Governors were forced to think carefully about these rules, balance their Constitutional implications, and then chose whether to require them or not. This continual thinking and balancing, to my mind, this is a good thing. What is the alternative? The Civil War was thought to be a good alternative at one time.
So let's respect the process, sympathize with Governors who have to make these very hard decisions, and abide by the results. And when our balancing act comes up with a different decision than our Governor has come up with, we can within the limits of the law, argue against the rules. Or we can vote out leaders who we feel make bad decisions about them. Or we can take the matter to Court, but this is very expensive and time-consuming.
So are these rules Constitutional? Yes. No. Maybe.
#}