Letter to the Editor - Freeman 7-29

Posted 7/29/20

Writer questions whether officials can constitutionally close down businesses and other activities

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Letter to the Editor - Freeman 7-29

Posted

Re: John McEnelly’s Letter to the Editor of July 11
To the Editor:
If believing that liberty and private property shouldn’t arbitrarily be taken by government without due process of law is “unconstitutional silliness,” I stand accused. If the belief in the right to freely assemble, freely and collectively worship, is “unconstitutional silliness,” I’m convicted.

Never in our history have minor public officials required millions of lawful businesses to close, throwing tens of millions of people out of work at the command of “experts” in the public health field who felt eliminating one particular health hazard overrode every other consideration, including constitutional considerations.
If politicians who followed their advice attempted to balance the potential harm from the virus against the harm of the shutdowns, it didn’t show. Why were liquor stores and pot dispensaries deemed “essential” and medical offices and hair stylists required to close?  Larger stores remained open, yet small establishments were deemed non-essential. It’s just this sort of arbitrary governmental abuse, i.e. tyranny, that the Founding Fathers feared and, in creating the Constitution, from which they sought to protect us.
The experts’ and politicians’ ignorance of the complexity of economic life was stunning, as was their hypocrisy. They lectured about the need for lockdowns, yet all had “essential” jobs. None feared their employer would go bankrupt or waited weeks for unemployment checks. Anyone who dared warn that the effects of the lockdowns would be more devastating than anything the virus could inflict was accused of being a heartless capitalist only interested in profits. But caring about the economy is caring about human life since the economy is how life is sustained.  
Mr. McEnelly’s letter of June 11 paints opposition to arbitrary government mandates as “unconstitutional silliness.”  He wants to represent me in the legislature, where an oath of allegiance to the Constitution is required; I think not. “Unconstitutional silliness” my foot.
Rodney Freeman, Jr.
Huron