Letters to the editor can be submitted to news@chronline.com.
The recent viral outbreak and decisions by governors to implement “stay-at-home” orders, shutting doors of businesses and more, has come under heavy fire by many Americans citing the infringement of their constitutional rights. I too, believe strongly that our constitution is the foundation of our country, both where we came from and where we should be going. Unfortunately, we have lost our way, because the wisdom of America’s founders has been severely undermined by politicians and judges. The failure of Americans to support the promise in our constitution has cost them dearly. Complacency in America has eroded our rights and liberties for over a century.
People still have the right to protest and file lawsuits, but before they do, they should do the research and get all the facts.
The inevitable lawsuits will abound over the restrictions on liberty.
Although, difficult to admit, as I read the case found from the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in case Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, page 197, paragraphs 25 and 38, it is clear. I do not like it, but it is what it is.
Justice Harlan stated the question before the Court: “Is this statute ... inconsistent with the liberty which the Constitution of the United States secures to every person against deprivation by the State?” Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905) 25. Harlan confirmed that the Constitution protects individual liberty and that liberty is not “an absolute right in each person to be, in all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint.”
Thus, the more specific questions were whether the safety of the public justified this particular restriction and whether it was enforceable by reasonable regulations. The Court answered yes to both questions.
Yes, if restrictions on liberty are unjustified, it is clearly unconstitutional.
If the justification adheres to constitutional standards, the restriction on liberty does not violate the constitution.
Additionally the ruling stated, “The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take, and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution” 38.
And, “Before closing this opinion, we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe — perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely — that the police power of a State, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”
I wish it were not so, but there it is.
Rick Yearout
Morton
