Already law; 18 U.S. Code § 1369 Destruction of veterans’ memorials
, simply an order to enforce it.
I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison, per the Veteran’s Memorial Preservation Act, or such other laws that may be pertinent…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020
Murder Rates Skyrocket as Police Are Pulled Back; the Numbers Are Stunning
Murder rates are skyrocketing across major U.S. cities as protests, statue destruction, and chaos continue. In the almost universally Democrat cities, we are seeing Ferguson/Baltimore in full effect, with police pulling back from fear of reprisal or being kneecapped by politicians. In many cases, the mayors of these cities are disassembling effective policing units, such as the undercover anti-crime units in New York City. Continue reading “”
Federal Charges Against Heiskell Man for Inciting a Riot, Civil Disorder
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — The U.S. Attorney’s Office has charged 18-year-old Dominic Brown of Heiskell with inciting a riot and civil disorder.
Allegedly, Brown was attempting to organize a riot at West Town Mall from messages he had posted on his Snapchat account.
They say Brown was arrested on Monday, and made his initial appearance in the U.S. District Court in Knoxville on Monday as well. Continue reading “”
You don’t say……
Report: Shootings Surge After NYPD Disbands Anti-Crime Unit
Reports indicate that shootings in New York City surged last week following the NYPD’s decision to disband its plainclothes anti-crime unit.
The New York Post reports the unit was disbanded on Monday, June 15, 2020, and the week ended with “28 [shooting] incidents and 38 victims.”
During the same week in 2019 there were only 12 shootings.
An law enforcement source told the Post, “This is what the politicians wanted — no bail, nobody in Rikers, cops not arresting anyone.”
The source added, “All those things equal people walking around on the street with guns, shooting each other.”
During the same week in 2019 there were only 12 shootings.
An law enforcement source told the Post, “This is what the politicians wanted — no bail, nobody in Rikers, cops not arresting anyone.”
The source added, “All those things equal people walking around on the street with guns, shooting each other.”
Trump signs police reform executive order in Rose Garden ceremony
President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order on law enforcement reform and said “chokeholds will be banned except if an officer’s life is at risk” as the nation reels from the death of George Floyd in the custody of the Minneapolis Police Department and the ensuing unrest — which has sparked calls for changes in policing nationwide as drastic as dismantling entire departments.
US city bans no-knock warrants after woman’s death
The city of Louisville in US state of Kentucky banned “no-knock” warrants Friday after a black woman was killed in her home earlier this year by police, sparking widespread outrage.
Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old health care worker, was killed by police in March, shot eight times in her home as police officers and her boyfriend exchanged gunfire while police attempted to carry out a drug sting. The officers requested and were granted a no-knock warrant by a local judge.
The Louisville City Council voted 26-0 to pass what is known as Breonna’s Law on Thursday. It prohibits any local law enforcement from seeking or participating in the execution of a no-knock warrant, which allow officers to enter a premise without prior notification, according to the local WLKY television network.
It further mandates officers wear body cameras while executing a search warrant after the three who fatally shot Taylor did not have them.
Mayor Greg Fischer signed the measure into law on Friday, describing the law as a “victory.”
Rasmussen: Majority Oppose Cutting Local Police Budgets
Only 27 percent of the survey respondents want to reduce police budgets, and 14 percent are undecided, according to Rasmussen.
Sentiments run along party lines, the new report revealed. Republicans are more reluctant than Democrats or Independents to cut police funding, and “those under 40 like the idea a lot more than their elders do.”
Another disturbing revelation of the Rasmussen poll is that 16 percent of Americans think most police officers are racist in the aftermath of Floyd’s death while in Minneapolis police custody May 25. That’s up 10 percent from a year ago, Rasmussen said.
However, 67 percent “still rate the performance of their local police as good or excellent.”
But officials in Minneapolis, Seattle and other cities are joining the anti-police chorus. Minneapolis Council President Lisa Bender told CNN, “We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe.”
In Seattle, Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda tweeted, “How many people have to call for the police to be defunded before the Mayor embraces radical change?”
She added, “The problem is–the weapons aren’t illegal, the tactics aren’t illegal, the riot gear isn’t illegal. We have allowed them, we have funded them, and that is why WE need to change.”
The Rasmussen survey found other interesting opinions.
“Even among blacks,” Rasmussen said, “only 27% think there are too many cops, although that compares to 15% of whites and 17% of other minority Americans. Blacks (36%) are more enthusiastic than whites (25%) and other minorities (24%) about defunding the police and channeling that money into more social services.”
The survey was conducted June 7-8 by Rasmussen Reports with a+/- 3 percentage point margin of sampling error and a 95 percent level of confidence.
Another revelation is that 77 percent of adults say crime remains a serious problem in the country today with 38 percent saying it is “very serious.”
What happens if police agencies are “de-funded” or dismantled and rebuilt?
According to CNN, what happened in Camden, N.J. might provide a hint. The story noted, “Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US. Now, seven years after the old department was booted (though around 100 officers were rehired), the city’s crime has dropped by close to half. Officers host outdoor parties for residents and knock on doors to introduce themselves. It’s a radically different Camden than it was even a decade ago.”
But will the Camden model work elsewhere?
In some communities, including Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and the cities of Snohomish and Kirkland in neighboring Washington, citizens tried a different approach to fears of violent protest. They turned out in big numbers, visibly armed. It apparently had a deterrent effect, since there have been no problems in any of those communities.
Perhaps a quote in the Spokane Spokesman-Review summed it up.
“I think there are two types of people,” Coeur d’Alene’s Mike Marquardt said. “The good people who are here to get a message across, and we are here to support and protect them. Then there are those who come to take advantage of the situation and cause trouble. We are here to protect against those.”
Auto Defensas Para Mi! (I called it)
If You Want To Know What Disbanding The Police Looks Like, Look At Mexico
The rise of vigilante groups in Mexico offers a hint of what happens when institutions fail and civil society collapses. America should be paying attention.
One of the most visible and insistent demands of the Black Lives Matter movement is the abolition or disbandment of the police—or at the very least defunding them, which taken to the extreme would amount to the same thing. “Abolish the police” has become a rallying cry among protesters and a litmus test for elected officials seeking to ally with them.
What comes after the police have been abolished remains unclear. Protesters and politicians alike are hazy on details, preferring instead to talk about “reimagining public safety” and throwing around vague terms like “community policing.”
Of course, in concrete terms what would happen if a city actually disbanded its police department, as the Minneapolis City Council pledged to do over the weekend, is that the county sheriff’s office or the state police—or perhaps even federal law enforcement—would step into the vacuum and the city would have almost no say in how it was policed or what policies county and state law enforcement agencies adopted.
But let’s say these ultra-progressive municipal governments could get their wish and abolish the police in their cities entirely. What would happen? Inevitably, an armed group would emerge and impose a monopoly on the use of force.
If you want an idea of how that works, look to our southern neighbor, Mexico, where over the past decade endemically corrupt police departments in some areas have been supplanted by autodefensas, or local self-defense militias. But before you get too excited about the prospect of paramilitary autodefensas policing American cities, understand that in Mexico these groups are a mixed bag at best—and at worst they’re not much better than the corrupt local police and cartel gunmen they replaced. More importantly, their mere presence in Mexico was and is a disturbing sign of societal decay…………….
Aside from Minneapolis—where on Saturday the mayor, Jacob Frey, was booed and heckled out of a rally after saying he didn’t support “the full abolition” of the police—cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Toronto are taking steps to reduce funding for law enforcement, in some cases redirecting tens of millions of dollars to various community programs while slashing police budgets.
Make no mistake, “defund the police” doesn’t mean “reform the police.” It means take the money away, which means fewer police on the street—and in the case of Minneapolis, apparently no municipal police on the street.
That local elected officials would even consider such policies is deeply troubling. America might not be a failing state overrun with drug cartels and corrupt politicians, but it is sliding in the direction of Mexico. We have declining levels of confidence in our institutions and declining levels of trust across society in general. The fabric of our civic life is fraying badly, and calls to abolish the police are a sign of that.
Despite the insistence of the protesters, getting rid of law enforcement won’t usher in a more just or equitable order. But it will invite new arrangements for security, as it did in Mexico. These arrangements, however well-intentioned, will fall prey to the same corruption and unaccountability as the forces they replace, especially if the underlying causes of societal decay are left to fester.
All 57 Members of Buffalo Police Department’s Emergency Response Team Resign
Every member of the Buffalo Police Departments Emergency Response Team, tasked with responding to riots and other peace keeping situations, resigned Friday. Ever.single.member.
According to The Buffalo News, the law enforcement officers have not resigned from the police force, only the special tactical unit responsible for crowd control.
The mass resignation comes after two officers were suspended without pay after video captured a 75-year-old man being pushed to the crowd after he confronted officers attempting to clear an area. The man approached officers and appeared to swat at one, who then pushed him out of the way. After the two officers were suspended, the union notified “rank and file members Friday that the union would no longer pay for legal fees to defend police officers related to the protests which began Saturday in downtown Buffalo and have continued on and off, according to one source.”
The notification upset the union, ultimately promptly the mass resignation.
More from The Buffalo News:
The union representing Buffalo police officers told its rank and file members Friday that the union would no longer pay for legal fees to defend police officers related to the protests which began Saturday in downtown Buffalo and have continued on and off, according to one source. The union is upset with the treatment of the two officers who were suspended Thursday.
“Our position is these officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square,” said Buffalo Police Benevolent Association President John Evans. “It doesn’t specify clear the square of men, 50 and under or 15 to 40. They were simply doing their job. I don’t know how much contact was made. He did slip in my estimation. He fell backwards.”
A video posted by WBFO late Thursday night showed the officers pushing the man before he fell backward and hit his head on the sidewalk. He was taken to Erie County Medical Center, where he was in stable but serious condition early Friday morning.
It was not clear how the Buffalo Police Department will deal with the manpower issue. State police, Erie County Sheriff’s Office, as well as other local law enforcement agencies have been helping with the response to protests and unrest.
“I don’t know what the city is going to do,” Evans said. “They have not called me.”
Mayor Byron Brown said in a statement: “The City of Buffalo is aware of developments related to the work assignments of certain members of the Buffalo police force. At this time, we can confirm that contingency plans are in place to maintain police services and ensure public safety within our community. The Buffalo police continue to actively work with the New York State Police and other cooperating agencies.”
Evans said: “We stand behind those officers 100%.”
The PBA will pay for any defense costs for the two officers, Evans said, but not for any members of the Emergency Response Team or SWAT in regards to the protesting.
Evans said the two officers, whose names have circulated widely social media, have been harassed.
The actions of the officers drew swift condemnation from people across the nation, including Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.
“It’s just fundamentally offensive and frightening,” Cuomo said Friday morning.
Watch the video here. WARNING: Graphic content.
Auto Defensas Para Ti y Mi!
Is “Defunding the Police” Libertarian?
I have become increasingly cognizant of a tendency of many libertarians to conflate “libertarian” with “antigovernment.” There are a variety of groups and movements in the U.S. who hate “the government” for their own reasons, but aren’t by any stretch of the imagination libertarian. If you hate the U.S. government because you think is it’s controlled by “Zionists” who are trying to destroy European American culture by organizing an alliance of Third World immigrants and native African Americans, you will likely support dramatic cuts in government; but you are not libertarian, because if you thought “your people” were in control, you would happily have a massive, unlibertarian federal government………….
There are plenty of police reforms that could be enacted from a libertarian perspective that would improve matters. Qualified immunity reform is libertarian. Holding police accountable for misbehavior is libertarian. Reducing the power of police unions is libertarian. Getting rid of overtime and pension abuse is libertarian. Banning no-knock raids is libertarian. Reducing bloated police department bureaucracies is libertarian.
Broader reforms that would reduce the need for police and reduce police/civilian encounters are also libertarian. Getting rid of victimless crimes, especially the drug war, and certain categories of criminal business regulation that should be handled civilly is libertarian. Getting rid of taxes that lead to black markets that in turn lead to police/civilian encounters is libertarian. Abolishing laws that allow local governments to put people in jail for failure to pay civil fines is libertarian. Separating forensic science services from prosecutors’ offices is libertarian. Holding prosecutors accountable for misconduct is libertarian. Finding alternatives to prison for certain categories of offenders is libertarian.
By contrast, “defunding the police,” if that just means willy-nilly cuts, is not libertarian………..
If defunding the police means getting rid of the police entirely, without any remote prospect of alternative means of protecting lives, safety, and property suddenly arising in its place (and in the current legal environment, the anarcho-capitalist dream of private protection services replacing police is impossible, even if it were somehow practical), is both crudely antigovernment and stupid.
Berwyn Police Request Help From National Guard Amid Threats of Looting, Riots
According to police in suburban Berwyn, authorities have requested assistance from the Illinois National Guard after a series of social media posts called for rioting and looting in the Cermak Plaza district.
In a release posted to the police department’s Facebook page, Berwyn officials say that the department received intelligence from the FBI and the Illinois State Police about potential rioting and looting in the area.
As a result, the department said the Illinois National Guard will allocate personnel and equipment to the area for “quicker mobilization in case they need to be utilized.”
“There is a validated playbook for dealing with riots”
Mayor Moron Destroys America’s Major Cities
When you reward bad behavior, expect more of it.
Can you make this stuff up?
Here is the city’s message in full, issued May 28, after several days and nights of rioting. Here is the final sentence:
The city urges everyone to exercise caution and stay safe while participating in demonstrations, including wearing masks and physical distancing as much as possible to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The city has made hundreds of masks available to protesters this week.
Protesters? Earth to Minneapolis Mayor Moron: Rioters torching whole sections of your city are not protesters. Many are professional agitators from out of town. Locals who loot stores are opportunists, many of them career criminals. The city’s message took zero notice of these elementary realities.
Mayor Moron’s contribution to the city’s full message was this: “We need to offer radical compassion and love that we all have in us. I believe in this city and I know that you do, too.”
There is a validated playbook for dealing with riots. It is a tale of two riots in the awful summer of widespread racial unrest in 1967. Eugene Methvin’s 1991 National Review “riot primer” laid out the playbook:
In a nutshell: Riots begin when some set of social forces temporarily overwhelms or paralyzes the police, who stand by, their highly visible inaction signaling to the small percentage of teenaged embryonic psychopaths and hardened young adults that a moral holiday is under way. This criminal minority spearheads the car-burning, window-smashing, and blood-letting, mobbing such hate targets as blacks, or white merchants, or lone cops. Then the drawing effect brings out the large crowds of older men, and women and children, to share the Roman carnival of looting. Then the major killing begins: slow runners caught in burning buildings and-as civic forces mobilize-in police and National Guard gunfire.…
The time to halt a riot is right at the start, by pinching off the criminal spearhead with precise and overwhelming force. The cops will usually be caught flat-footed (no pun intended) by the initial outbreak. But they need to spring into a pre-arranged mobilization that should always be as ready in every major city as the fire-department or hospital disaster-response program.
Methvin compared two July 1967 riots. In Toledo, rioters began smashing things, throwing rocks at police cruisers. The authorities resounded instantly and decisively, arresting the thugs, with order restored within 36 hours. No one died. Not so in Detroit, where the authorities decided to allow rioters to let off steam. Five days of violence followed, with more than 40 fatalities and more than 1,000 injured. Property damage was estimated at over $40 million, in 2020 dollars, roughly $300 million. It was the worst rioting in America since the 1863 New York City draft riots, not to be exceeded in scale until the 1992 Rodney King riots.
And there is a lasting loss for failing to do so. South Central Los Angeles never recovered from the double blow of the 1965 Watts and 1992 conflagrations. Detroit and Newark never recovered from the destruction of 1967. Washington, D.C., never fully recovered from the riots after the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr……………….
Police to New Jersey gym that opened in defiance of order: “Have a good day.”
BELLMAWR, N.J. – A gym in southern New Jersey has reopened for business in defiance of a state order that shut down nonessential businesses to help stem the spread of the coronavirus.
People began gathering outside the Atilis Gym in Bellmawr several hours before it reopened at 8 a.m. Monday.
“We are and only were here for everybody’s safety today. We planned for the worst and hoped for the best, and it seems like that’s what we have out here today,” the officer said to the owners and surrounding crowd.
“Formally, you are all in violation of the executive order. On that note, have a good day. Everybody be safe,” the officer said before walking away as the crowd erupted in cheers.
Actually the prosecutor probably determined that further prosecution persecution would be detrimental to his political future.
Charges dropped against Florida pastor who held church services despite coronavirus restrictions
Prosecutors in Florida have dropped misdemeanor charges against a Florida pastor who defied the state’s stay-at-home order to continue church services.
Evangelical megachurch leader Rodney Howard-Browne of the River at Tampa Bay Church had the charges of unlawful assembly and violating quarantine orders during a public health emergency dropped Friday. Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren said the arrest was appropriate that it only came “after repeated efforts to gain cooperation in other ways were not successful.”
Warren said that since the pastor was arrested, he has “maintained responsible social distancing” and has engaged with community leaders about how to move forward during the coronavirus pandemic.
“Our office has determined that further prosecution or punishment would not provide increased protections for our community and is not needed to achieve any additional change in Pastor Howard-Browne’s behavior,” he said.
Howard-Browne was arrested in late March after he repeatedly flouted Florida’s social distancing restrictions and continued to hold crowded church services……….
I’d have substituted “cop” for “government” – we know the government would do it if it could – but otherwise, a fair point.
Justice Department Calls Church Service Restrictions Unconstitutional
Officials single out Gov. Northam for criminally charging pastor for holding services.
Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department has been a consistent advocate of religious freedom throughout the coronavirus lockdown. In its latest move, it is signaling that governors likely never had the authority to restrict church gatherings.
Officials on Sunday filed a statement of interest supporting a Virginia church that sued Gov. Ralph Northam for capping congregations at 10 people. It says that unless Northam can prove that his 10-person limit is applicable to all gatherings, then he is violating the First Amendment freedom of speech and religion clauses.
Here are the facts of the case. On Palm Sunday, pastor Kevin Wilson of Lighthouse Fellowship Church in Chincoteague convened a service with 16 people present in a building that typically seats more than 200. All congregants sanitized their hands upon entering and maintained a six-foot social distance, according to the church’s suit.
To make its point clear, the church included in its filing photos of many people shopping while social distancing at Walmart, Lowe’s, and other big stores.
Midway through the service, several police officers wearing masks entered the church and asked to speak with Wilson. They issued him a citation and told everyone else gathered that if they returned for an Easter Sunday service, they would all receive citations, too.
In Virginia, the punishment for violating Northam’s stay at home order is a $2,500 fine or up to one year in prison. Wilson called off his Easter service.
But because Wilson does not have the capacity to broadcast his service online, forgoing the service meant that Easter at Lighthouse was essentially canceled. And even if he was able to stream the service, many of his congregants don’t have internet and wouldn’t be able to watch anyway.
This situation, the church alleged, was grounds for suit because Northam’s order does not take into consideration the fact that some churches need to meet in person to continue their public practice of faith. Preventing them from meeting, it said, is tantamount to preventing them from a free exercise of religion. Furthermore, it added, the order is weighted unfairly against churches because it allows businesses to remain open in a modified fashion — but still with more than 10 people in a building at once.
To make its point clear, the church included in its filing photos of many people shopping while social distancing at Walmart, Lowe’s, and other stores. It also included a photo of Northam himself, speaking at a press conference and surrounded by many more than 10 people, all of whom were social distancing. Under Northam’s order, these are considered essential gatherings — and Lighthouse argued that church should be included in that category.
The Justice Department found the photos and Lighthouse’s arguments compelling. After all, if people can be trusted to social distance at stores, DOJ officials wrote, then why not at churches, too?
“The orders, by exempting other activities permitting similar opportunities for in-person gatherings of more than 10 individuals, while at the same time prohibiting churches from gathering in groups of more than 10 — even with social distancing measures and other precautions — has impermissibly interfered with the church’s free exercise of religion,” DOJ officials wrote. “Unless the Commonwealth can prove that its disparate treatment of religious gatherings is justified by a compelling reason and is pursued through the least restrictive means, this disparate treatment violates the Free Exercise Clause, and the orders may not be enforced against the church.”
Although the statement does not take a position on whether or not churches such as Lighthouse are wise to meet in person, it asserts that Northam (or any other governor, for that matter) shouldn’t take a position either.
This opinion is consistent with Barr’s last intervention in a coronavirus-related religious freedom lawsuit. In April, Barr himself filed a statement of interest supporting a church in Mississippi that had sued Greenville Mayor Errick Simmons for shutting down its drive-in services.
Barr said that if drive-in fast food restaurants such as Sonic are allowed to remain open, then drive-in churches should be treated the same way. Simmons, he said, was not only violating the First Amendment, but also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law that prevents governments from imposing “special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.”
“It is unclear why prohibiting these services is the least restrictive means of protecting public health,” Barr wrote of the drive-in services. “Especially if, as alleged in the complaint, the city allows other conduct that would appear to pose equal — if not greater — risks.”
Barr’s words had an almost immediate impact: Simmons revoked his order the next day at the direction of Gov. Tate Reeves (R). And, in a series of court decisions handed down in the next few weeks, judges ruled in favor of drive-in services in similar lawsuits across the country.
It remains to be seen if the Justice Department’s support for in-person services will have the same practical impact as its support for drive-ins. Many governors, judges, and even church leaders are risk-averse — especially as states move toward reopening — and do not want sudden outbreaks because they flung open the church doors too soon.
Even if Lighthouse’s lawsuit fails, the Justice Department’s argument vindicates frustrated churchgoers. It’s not just unfortunate that so many states are restricting religious services more stringently than other gatherings. It’s unconstitutional.
An essential principle of the United States is that it is a free country, with individual liberties guaranteed, and government power limited. That concept is now being tested. A deadly worldwide pandemic has led to draconian lockdowns, forced closings of businesses, and even mandatory “stay at home” orders, some with Orwellian, friendly sounding names like “Safer at Home” or “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” – but still mandatory and enforced by police. The unprecedented, far-reaching orders have been issued by unelected county health officers as well as by governors of states.
Are these orders legal? Do state governors have the legal and Constitutional authority to forcibly close all “non-essential” businesses? To confine the entire population in their homes indefinitely without a trial? Who gets to decide which businesses are non-essential? In California, churches, synagogues and mosques have been deemed “non-essential” and ordered closed, but liquor and hardware stores are still open and doing a bustling business.
President Trump proclaimed a national state of emergency under the National Emergencies Act on March 13, 2020. However, nothing in that proclamation closed any businesses, confined anyone in their homes or infringed on any other constitutional rights or liberties. That, and other actions by the federal government merely cleared away certain regulatory roadblocks that could interfere with the government’s response to the pandemic.
By contrast, the orders issued at the state and local level have dramatically restricted the civil liberties of ordinary law-abiding Americans, shutting down all “non-essential” businesses, causing, at last count, 22 million Americans to lose their jobs, and confining the vast majority of the nation to their homes. All of this was accomplished not pursuant to any laws specifically authorizing these actions, but rather, on the basis of general laws pertaining to emergencies and quarantines. For example, the statewide order in California is based on the governor’s power, during a state of emergency, to coordinate a State Emergency Plan, to exercise authority over agencies of the state government and to exercise the police power vested in the state, and the state Health Department’s authority to “quarantine, isolate, inspect, and disinfect persons, animals, houses, rooms, other property, places, cities, or localities, whenever in its judgment the action is necessary to protect or preserve the public health.” Nothing in the state law specifically authorizes the governor to order all residents of the state to be confined to their homes indefinitely, or to shutter all businesses deemed non-essential, so the state government is proceeding instead under these very broad, general provisions which have never before in the history of the state been employed or interpreted in such an all-encompassing manner.
Not only has this crisis given government officials with authoritarian impulses an opportunity to rule by decree, it has exposed the lamentable fact that most Americans tend to willingly obey such “orders” without even questioning whether they are legally valid.
What are the limits of government power? Do governors really have the authority to issue such sweeping orders controlling the personal lives of each of the millions of citizens living within the borders of their states? To answer that question, it is necessary to first examine the bedrock principle of democracy – that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This principle is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The power that a government may legitimately exercise is only that power that has been conferred on the government by the people.
In the United States, that power is delegated to government officials by constitutions and laws. Governors are not kings. They do not rule over the people in their states; rather, they are employees of the state and have been given certain executive powers as specified in the state constitution. These powers are always limited and never absolute.
The supreme law of the United States is the federal Constitution, a document so fundamental to our system of governance that, to the extent that any law conflicts with it, that law is deemed invalid.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, this prohibition was made applicable to the state governments. And yet, these “stay-at-home orders” very clearly and overtly restrict the “right of the people peaceably to assemble” and the orders shuttering churches and other houses of worship undeniably infringe on the free exercise of religion.
While it is easy for government officials to say that worship can be done remotely or in the privacy of the homes to which we are all individually confined, the fact remains that for many religious believers, there is an admonition to come together to worship, and for others, it is imperative to present prayers and offerings in a holy house of worship. Some people (the homeless, for example), may not have remote electronic access to worship services. In any event, it is not for the government to decide that these religious beliefs are unimportant or that they may be disregarded. And if home improvement stores, banks, supermarkets and Walmarts are permitted to remain open so long as social distancing measures are practiced, why are churches not allowed to do the same?
The right to travel has also been recognized as a fundamental individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116 (1958) And yet, the orders confining the entire population to their homes except for “essential activities” like buying liquor or power tools (but definitely not going to church on Easter Sunday) restrict the right of the people to travel.
When individual Constitutional rights and liberties are impacted by government action, such action is subject to “strict scrutiny” by the courts. The government must establish that there is a “compelling state interest” and that its action is the “least restrictive means” to promote that interest. It seems highly dubious that an indefinite lockdown of the entire population is the “least restrictive means” to achieve any legitimate objective.
It is hard to imagine a more restrictive means than locking everyone up in their homes and shuttering all businesses deemed “non-essential.” The state may have the power to quarantine certain individuals who are reasonably suspected of having been exposed to the SARS-COv-2 virus, but in the U.S., only about one tenth of one percent of the population have tested positive. That is hardly reasonable justification for incarcerating the entire population under house arrest without due process of law.
A less-restrictive means of achieving the government interest would be to identify high-risk individuals — those who have been exposed or those who have particular susceptibility to the disease — and place them under quarantine or some form of isolation, while letting the vast majority of Americans continue to enjoy their liberties and Constitutional rights.
Another method would be to do as Sweden has done, and implement social distancing rules and recommendations without shutting down businesses or forcibly confining the entire population in their homes. Or perhaps houses of worship — where constitutionally protected activity takes place — could be allowed to operate under the same rules as grocery stores, hardware stores and wine shops: no forced closing, but everyone maintains a six-foot separation and wears a face covering. There are any number of possible less restrictive means of slowing the spread of the virus. The means that the state governments have chosen appear to be the most restrictive means, rather than the least.
The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution does not mention any exceptions to individual rights and liberties when there is a declared state of emergency. Such an exception, if it existed, would effectively render the rights illusory, because authoritarian-minded government officials could simply declare an emergency and thereby negate the rights of the people. Indeed, this is, historically, the way it has usually been done It is at fearful times like these when our individual rights are most threatened and most in need of being protected and preserved.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “emergency may not create power.” Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917), citing Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866). The Civil War did not give President Lincoln the authority to have civilians in Indiana tried by military commissions without due process of law. Even during such a chaotic time when the nation was convulsed in violence and bloodshed, individual Constitutional rights were protected. Those precious rights should be no less protected today. No virus can strip Americans of their civil rights. But as this crisis and the government responses to it have shown, if we are not vigilant in protecting our liberties, they will be taken from us.
Michigan sheriffs accuse Gov. Whitmer of ‘overstepping her executive authority’
‘We believe that we are the last line of defense in protecting your civil liberties,’ sheriffs say
Sheriffs from four different counties in northern Michigan spoke out against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s statewide lockdown Wednesday, saying the Democratic governor is “overstepping her executive authority” during the coronavirus pandemic.
Leelanau County Sheriff Mike Borkovich, Benzie County Sheriff Ted Schendel, Manistee County Sheriff Ken Falk and Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole issued a joint press release saying they will only enforce the governor’s order on a case-by-case basis by using “common sense.”
“While we understand her desire to protect the public, we question some restrictions that she has imposed as overstepping her executive authority,” the sheriffs wrote. “She has created a vague framework of emergency laws that only confuse Michigan citizens.
“As a result, we will not have strict enforcement of these orders. We will deal with every case as an individual situation and apply common sense in assessing the apparent violation,” they continued. “Each of us took an oath to uphold and defend the Michigan Constitution, as well as the US Constitution, and to ensure that your God given rights are not violated. We believe that we are the last line of defense in protecting your civil liberties.”
Ms. Whitmer’s stay-at-home order has faced harsh criticism for its extreme measures to combat the spread of the coronavirus, including banning Michiganders from traveling between two residences and banning big-box stores from selling items deemed nonessential by the state, including plants and seeds. The governor has repeatedly defended the measures, claiming that residents won’t be traveling or gardening much anyway due to the snow.
