Letters to the Editor: On the Constitutionality of Lockdowns and Mandatory Masks


Here in the United States the COVID-19 body count has exceeded 250,000, which is more than four times the combat deaths of the Vietnam war, five times WWI combat deaths, and is likely to pass the WWII total of 291,000 by year’s end. By most counts, the COVID-19 death count began in February, only ten months, not years. Even if the numbers decrease by the February anniversary of the first one here in Washington state, the charts available online depict a pattern of steadily higher lows and highs. Yet, many Americans refuse being inconvenienced by mandates and lockdowns because they believe their rights and liberties are being trashed.

I have spent months of research on this beginning with U. S. Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court, state Constitution, Washington Administrative code, and the Revised Code of Washington. All this has taken me back over 220 years, to the thoughtful construct of the supreme law of the land. 

In Marbury vs Madison, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution. The Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated. 

In 1905, Justice 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. And, … 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.” RCW 43.06.220 gives the governor authority to issue lock-downs and mask mandates which are backed by the Supreme Court. The same applies for WAC 246-100-070, RCW 70.05.120, which “must’ be enforced. The Supreme Court determined the word “must” imposes obligation and indicates a necessity to act. Therefore, not doing so, violates the laws authorized by the same court.

This includes all people, law officers, businesses, and government at every level, who have been crying about their rights and liberties being violated.

These are all facts. Verify them for yourself.

Too many selfish so-called constitutional patriots toss it aside like rubbish. If they are true patriots, and believe the Constitution is the supreme law, they would abide by the laws of the state and protect others by wearing a mask in public and follow group guidelines. Sadly, many still do not care about others or the overwhelmed healthcare workers. 


Rick Yearout