Vermillion Plain Talk editor David Lias offers the best account I’ve read of the best statement I’ve heard in support of sensible public health interventions by local governments to fight the coronavirus pandemic.
Lias records the argument—or, more accurately, the elucidation of plain facts about the United States Constitution and the proper roles of government offered by South Dakota State University professor emeritus of political science Bob Burns at last week’s Brookings City Council meeting, which led to passage of the citywide mask requirement:
“I’m here to comment on the legality or the Constitutionality of the proposed ordinance. One of the primary powers reserved to state governments under the United States Constitution is the police power, or the power to legislate directly for the health, safety, welfare and morals of its inhabitants,” he said. “States, in turn, may empower local governments to assert similar powers over local inhabitants. In addition, cities like Brookings with Home Rule Charter may exercise certain police powers over inhabitants unless otherwise prohibited by the state government or the U.S. Constitution.”
He told the crowd at the Swiftel Center that “there are no state governmental prohibitions to the assertion of power proposed by our (Brookings) city council during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic and with evidence of a worrisome high rate of community spread.”
Burns noted that opponents to the new Brookings regulation that would require masks “have argued that individual freedoms secured by the United States Constitution prohibit the city council from ordering the wearing of face masks and social distancing. Obviously, there is no mention of the protection of the wearing of a face mask or practicing social distancing in the text of the U.S. Constitution.”
He also stated that the “the contested restriction on individual or business behavior” being considered by the Brookings City Council Tuesday might be found invalid by a court if those restrictions were not rationally related to a legitimate governmental end or purpose.
“We have already established that the protection of public health and safety is a legitimate end of state and local governments. In addition, ample evidence exists to demonstrate that mask wearing and social distancing are effective measures in reducing the community spread of the virus,” Burns said. “The proposed restrictions are like prohibitions on smoking in public places, wearing a helmet while operating a motorcycle or wearing a seat belt while driving or riding in a vehicle.”
Such regulations do restrict individual behavior, he said, but they are rationally related to a legitimate end of government.
“Individual behavior totally free of rational governmental regulation is best defined as anarchy,” Burns said. “An ordered scheme of liberty does require all of us to accept rational limitations on our behavior” [emphasis mine; David Lias, “Government Inaction Does Not Equal Freedom,” Vermillion Plain Talk, 2020.09.11].
As Lias notes, Governor Kristi Noem says the words freedom and liberty a lot in response to questions about why she doesn’t deploy more of the authority and resources of her office to beat back this pandemic. But Governor Noem seems never to explain what liberty really means, or the effort and sacrifices liberty demands of all of us, or the fact that liberty cannot exist without limits and good government. Dr. Burns offers a much more thoughtful, realistic, and practical explanation of how liberty works, especially in times of community crisis. Maybe Noem didn’t listen to Dr. Burns much when she dabbled in classes at SDSU; she should pause her own speech-making and listen to Dr. Burns now.
Well written and stated by all. Thank you.
Exactly.
BTW, this reference to Kruel Kristi’s post high school education made me grin, “she dabbled in classes at SDSU.” I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a very accurate characterization.
After reading the frontpage article in the AAN’s where Groton school board is bullied about their mask requirement for indoor school functions. This story should be shared with Groton School District Superintendent and School board. Stand up for life and do what’s right.
I like Judge Stickman’s view better, who just ruled that some of Pennsylvania’s restrictions went too far:
“The Court closes this Opinion as it began, by recognizing that Defendants’ actions at issue here were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency. But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms – in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a “new normal” where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions take by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional.”
Rational is not in Krist’s ideological skill set.
Neal, what specific actions by what specific level of government did Judge Stickman rule unconstitutional, and on what grounds?
Your quote refers to “basic liberties,” but Dr. Burns seems to address that issue. What “basic liberties” has Brookings infringed?
I would think the old nugget: “your liberty to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose” applies here. I have a basic human right to not be made sick by others. I have an expectation that others take the normal steps to not take my health and welfare away. You have the “freedom” to not wear a mask RIGHT UP UNTIL your not wearing that mask endangers others.
That ought to be a simple ask for the party that proclaims itself “pro-life.”
I would agree with Judge Stickman’s analysis in a narrow focus: for example, a curfew cannot stop my freedom to assemble for the redress of grievance, or polling place social distancing regulation cannot limit my right to vote — which I assume our friend Neil is advocating.
I took several classes taught by Bob Burns (way back in the late 80s and early 90s). Of all the instructors I had at SDSU, Burns was the one who would expect you to open your mind and let it then be filled with the so-called wisdom that he would tell you that he had. He never once taught us to think for ourselves or to develop and test our own ideas. I remember challenging him during the Judge Thomas confirmation hearings and listening to him not being able adequately defend how Ted Kennedy had the moral high ground to sit in judgment of any other person. I have never been impressed with titles that adorn Bob Burns as the supreme opinion of politics in South Dakota. If he was such an astute moral mind on government, how did he raise a felon/son who took hundreds of thousands of other’s hard earned money?
Moral high ground—theres a concept in the Trump debacle.
Bad grade, eh? Nursing that right wing 60s Teddy grudge. Still Steamed about Bork too but ignorant of previous Republican judicial hit jobs?
Liberal professor bad. Uneducated governor good.
Alcoholic Kennedy families of two assassinations, bad. Alcoholic dry drunk Trump families good.
Felons bad. Leaving the Scene of fatality, lying about a deer, good.
(Could Jason mislead location of search in the dark for the “deer”?)
Abortion bad. Shooting abortion doctors/clinics good.
Republican topsy turvy world of spin messaging. Now if you could just govern. And not abuse power.
Thomas, we cannot blame parents for the actions of their adult children. That comment does not help your argument.
Not a bad grade at all. Loved those classes. I’m just saying that Burns is not the almighty opinion that he and the failing South Dakota Democrats think that he is as they wait for the second coming of McGovern and Kneip. Leslie, you seem to think that only those who have attained the status of college graduate have anything to offer society. That’s very superior of you. Also, please don’t lump me into all the bad things that bad misguided people have done on behalf of the right wing. Your group thought tactics is what is wrong with politics in this country. I am a member of the group that is the most discriminated group there is. I am an individual!
Debbo:
There is not; nor has there ever been, a child or an adult who isn’t what they are because of their parents.
Thomas, unless you mean that in some way I don’t understand, I must disagree. Are you saying that adults don’t have agency? If you are correct the world’s legal codes must be rewritten.
History is full of people who have broadly diverged from their parenting.
(I think I’ll drop out of this parenting topic, since it is far from this post’s topic.)