OPINION:
“Coronavirus follies” (Web, April 14) correctly exposes the lack of common sense some governmental officials exercised while implementing policies to combat the coronavirus.
But I believe your editorial rebuke was too soft on those politicians who seem to be reveling in their new-found police-state powers. Now that governors have established the precedent that constitutional protections may be suspended at their discretion — such as enforcing edicts forbidding peaceful assembly, including religious assembly, hectoring big-box stores and telling them what they can and cannot sell, and moving to electronically monitor citizens’ behavior — we would be terribly naive not to believe activist governors, especially those with authoritarian tendencies, would not push this envelope in the future.
Though the U.S. Constitution is clear on many things, it is not at all clear about when and for how long First Amendment protections may be discarded. This poses the following questions: Who determines what is and what is not a legitimate “public safety” crisis? Who determines when a crisis threshold has been sufficiently reached so that suspension of constitutional protections is legal? For how long may constitutional protections be suspended?
Moreover, would the suspension of constitutional protections be acceptable to prevent a perceived future crisis, such as the “imminent climate catastrophe,” for which some in government already advocate the suspension of free-market economics? Likewise, would suspension of constitutional protections be acceptable if the crisis of gun violence could be solved once and for all? These questions need answers now because constitutional protections have already been breached, and itchy governors are anxious to act.
It is a whole lot easier to let a bull escape than to persuade it to return. Let’s reinforce the pen, shall we?
KEN BECKERT
Abingdon, Md.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.