Waterpolo Wesley vs the Covid Boogeyman

Lockdown protestors outside the Louisiana Governor’s Mansion in Baton Rouge. Photo courtesy of Chris Graythen/Getty Images

WATERPOLO WESLEY VS. THE COVID BOOGIEMAN

The Covid-19 pandemic is unlike anything else we’ve seen before. In modern history, it is only the second pandemic after the 1918 flu pandemic. Covid-19 has surprised us, tested us, fully impacted our way of life. With this new challenge comes unforeseen problems that have caused great anguish and damage to people around the world. The vast majority of countries have struggled with containing the coronavirus at some point in time. However, as described in a New York Times article, it is a “unique U.S. failure to control the virus.” This country is supposed to be the United States. However, amid the novel coronavirus, the United States has become increasingly more a version of the “Divided States”. Politics and poorly informed individuals have trumped science, creating division, and resulting in massive cases. At the core of the issue is the lack of a national strategy when it comes to the containment of the virus. During a meeting with state governors, Vice President Mike Pence “commended the governors” and added that they were “responding with great professionalism”, promising that the White House would be “supporting those that were directly impacted.” Keep in mind this meeting was on March 19, when the spread of COVID was only prevalent in California, New York, and Washington. As the top tier in our system, the federal government had already decided by mid-March that it would delegate the majority of the responsibility to states and their governors rather than act as an example of how the country should deal with Covid-19. Governors were almost exclusively responsible to set measures and mandates for their respective states. In the early stages of the pandemic, 43 out of 50 states issued stayat-home, or lockdown orders. Not long after these orders were issued, 32 of these states had lockdown protests. President Trump and his supporters, along with people on his advisory boards, organized and supported some of these first protests in Michigan and Minnesota. The anti-masks, anti-lock down mentality quickly grew and inspired further protests in other states in the following weeks. The people attending and partaking in these protests have a right to protest; they don’t, however, have a right to break the rules by not social distancing and/or wearing masks. They do not have the right to ignore a serious health threat and endanger others. In addition, some of the protesters were business owners and employees directly impacted by the shutdown. Their motive was clear, but it was not as clear why others who were not business owners or employees but rather customers joined. Protesters were interviewed by many news outlets and their explanation for participating in the protests was bizarre. “Lockdowns are unconstitutional”, they said. The

most interesting part of all is that no one could seem to point to the part of the Constitution that specifically stated issuing an order meant to protect public health and safety should not be allowed. It goes without saying that a Founding Document written in the 18th century typically doesn’t talk about a pandemic in the 21st century. Wesley Huggett, a fellow journalist (page11), believes that people should have the right to choose what they do during a time like this. While that’s great and all, his views have no relevance when it comes to discussing what is constitutional and what is not. If someone is to make a claim based on a legal document, then they must ensure that the document supports and explicitly states their viewpoint. In the case of a lockdown, there is nothing written in the Constitution that would prohibit such a mandate to be issued. On the contrary, governors and legislators regularly adopt measures to protect citizens and their public health, such as wearing a seatbelt while driving or flying, setting acceptable alcohol levels while driving, mandating sanitary guidelines for restaurants to operate, to name a few. These actions are broad and applied to safeguard citizens without being argued to be unconstitutional. I fully understand why some people were and still are upset with the prospect of a stay-at-home order. It is an extremely difficult time for everyone, and those whose business and employment have been threatened as a result should be heard. But as a society, we cannot allow unfounded claims about the Constitution to act as the cornerstone for reckless behavior that endangers the lives of fellow citizens. I am an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, meaning I believe the language within it should be interpreted as having its original meaning rather than attempting to interpret its meaning through today’s language. I also believe in applying precedent, an example meant to act as a guide, in situations where the constitutionality of something is being challenged. In 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruled that a vaccine mandate was constitutional. The difference between 1905 and 2020 is that there actually was enforcement of the vaccine mandate, with those who refused vaccination subject to criminal action. In contrast, 2020's lockdown enforcement has been nonexistent, as you can be in violation of these rules and not face any fine or jail time. As recently as 2014, when Ebola reached the States, federal courts ruled that cries of unconstitutionality relating to mandates issued to contain the spread of this extremely deadly disease were invalid. So far businesses that have sued to reopen because of a supposed infringement upon their constitutional rights have been unsuccessful in both Michigan and Pennsylvania. There is nothing in the Constitution that would make lockdowns issued by governors illegal. Individually and as a nation we face one of the most challenging times in modern history, and I understand how impactful lockdowns are for the economy and for the mental and physical health of our citizens. Criticize and protest against the lockdowns, exercise your first amendment rights, but if you’re going to say lockdowns are unconstitutional, at least educate yourself and have facts and jurisprudence that back the unconstitutionality claim of stay-at-home-orders. In the absence of such evidence, don’t be a delusional and ignorant buffoon who struts around waving the Constitution without merit.

BY: ANDRES JAIME-MENDEZ