First and foremost, we are a Constitutional Republic and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to suspend rights in general like they are doing in some states now. The Supreme Court has dealt with exigent circumstances in a number of situations, the general rule is very temporary and by the least intrusive means. For example a police officer sees a suspicious car late at night, he can stop that vehicle with reasonable suspicion, detain the driver and occupants and conduct a short interview. Those terms are subject to court interpretation, if there was reasonable suspicion and the stop was the least intrusive to establish any further reason to investigate. I could give a hundred examples just remember short period of time and least intrusive action.
In the case of someone who knows or should suspect they are infected with a serious disease and behaves in a reckless manner may constitute an assault or attempted assault, the key here is a victim. Someone wandering on a public beach during a pandemic is not in any way a health risk.
You might say it’s for the best that everyone stays home and that protects the public. At risk of being a heretic I ask “is it?”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to actually quarantine the vulnerable and elderly? That would have been much more sustainable. We are now facing mass unemployment, loss of businesses permanently and a potential economic collapse. That certainly is not protecting the public.
The experts can’t agree, masks no masks, herd immunity or wait for a man made immunization. We have to go on with our lives at some point, there have never been guarantees in life only choices. With no certain cure in the near future and knowing this is not sustainable the government should relent on its human regulation policies and people will make the right choices for themselves as the founders intended.
by Jeff Blaha