Pages

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Unconcerned about constitutional rights

I recently saw a political conservative (as well as Reformed Christian) state the following on Twitter:

Given the current health crisis, no one is currently concerned about constitutional rights.

1. I don't understand how any full-blooded American could ever say something like this. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were forged in the wake of war. In the midst of a fledgling nation threatened to be torn apart from internal strife. Surrounded by opportunistic enemies (e.g. British, French, Spanish). Facing outbreak after outbreak of disease which afflicted Americans in general as well as American soldiers defending the nation. Perhaps the most fearsome of the diseases at the time was smallpox. Smallpox is scarier than coronavirus. It had a higher transmission rate (R0) and fatality rate (CFR). (Thankfully we eradicated smallpox a few decades ago.) Yet, despite all these real and present crises as well as crises waiting to happen, including public health crises, our Founding Fathers were keenly "concerned about constitutional rights".

2. In fairness, the statement could be saying "constitutional rights" aren't even on the table right now. Not that we should be unconcerned about constitutional rights. If so, that's likewise something I don't understand. Why shouldn't constitutional rights be on the table during a public health crisis? If not during a crisis, then when? Only during "normal" times? Perhaps he's alluding to something like Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. If so, it's arguable whether Lincoln should've done that.

7 comments:

  1. Why do you find it odd that a "Reformed person" wouldn't be concerned with Constitutional rights? Is Reformed theology somehow inherently pro-Constitution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, I could have phrased it better.

      Delete
    2. i) Because the US Constitution is the mediating structure for Rom 13 in our situation.

      ii) In addition, Calvinists should be concerned with actions that subordinate the church to the state, impeding Christian expression.

      Delete
  2. I would recommend David French and Sarah Isgur's Advisory Opinions podcast from, I think, last Thursday where they address the question of whether churches would have a plausible legal case that the constitution exempts churches from the sort of lockdown we're seeing in California.

    Short answer: No. Not even close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David French is hit-n-miss

      Delete
    2. It's the same David French who supported Trump's impeachment and removal due to the Ukraine phone call, so I don't automatically genuflect to his legal wisdom.

      Delete
    3. Sure. It's not that because French and Isgur said so. But the reasons they give seem very solid and are based on past legal rulings.

      Delete