Here’s a glimmer of sanity during our months of house
arrest. Thomas Lifson at American Thinker reports:
Two state supreme courts have
stepped up to constrain abuse of civil rights in the name of fighting an
epidemic. The concept of a "state of emergency" can be
used to suspend constitutional limitations on the powers of government, as has
been the case with the response to the Wuhan virus pandemic. But
under our system of justice, there has to be a reckoning, and finally we are
beginning to see state supreme courts acknowledging what Barack Obama
notoriously called "negative
liberties," also known as limits on governmental powers, also known as
protections against tyranny.
Using their respective state
constitutions (which generally mirror the U.S. Constitution when it comes to
fundamental rights), the supreme courts of Wisconsin and Texas have spoken up
for liberty in the face of two months of "state of emergency"
punishing restrictions on liberty.
. . .
In Texas, Justice James D.
Blacklock, the majority [opinion held that] the default position must always be
to protect rights, and any contravention of thise rights must be minimal and
justified. This is what our revolution was fought to protect.
. . .
These judicial actions — and there
will be more later — will help solidify the growing public revulsion against
loss of liberties in the name of fighting an epidemic that, while concerning,
has not lived up the scary estimates driven by computer models that have not
proved out as remotely realistic. Politically, Democrats have
wagered that the public will remain frightened enough to accept a new Great
Depression in the name of avoiding a phantom catastrophe . . .
Read the article here; it includes extracts from the
judicial rulings.
# # #
