Federal US District Court Judge William Stickman IV has ruled that COVID19 inspired lockdowns, even though they may have been “undertaken with the good intention,” are unconstitutional.
Related: Gov Sununu Issues Emergency Order #67 to Regulate Parents’ Remote Learning Pods
The challenge, which came in response to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s various emergency orders, of which we have had many similar such infringements here in New Hampshire, “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 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,” the judge wrote, according to the Associated Press.
In other words, Public health does not Trump everything else. Governors cannot use “health concerns” to empower the State to deny any right It decides for whatever duration it imagines is necessary. More from the AP.
The ruling means that current restrictions, including ones that limit the size of indoor and outdoor gatherings, can’t be enforced, according to attorney Thomas W. King III, who represented the plaintiffs. The state has been enforcing a gathering limit of more than 25 people for events held indoors and more than 250 people for those held outside.
“It’s really 100% in our favor. The court found in all respects that the orders issued by the governor and the secretary of health were unconstitutional. What it means is they can’t do it again, and they should not have done it in the past,” King said.
Naturally, the State is challenging the ruling, which suggests this will find it’s way to the Supreme Court before we get a decision that cannot be overturned. Sadly, that may not be the decision you want. Such is the nature of the problem. One that Ian Underwood has explored at length on our pages.
If the words don’t mean anything to you, the government, why should they mean anything to me, the People?
We are essentially dickering over present-day feelings about the definitions of terms like shall not be infringed. Clearly that does not mean that because the government infringes all the time.
Congress shall make no law also has no meaning. That body has and will continue to make laws that do not respect and constantly abridge rights.
As for the lockdowns, mask mandates, and all the rest of it, my wife asked me a few days ago when I thought this would end. I promptly answered, never. She was startled and looked for an explanation, which I provided.
Now that we have “as a community” shown them our asses, they will never stop whipping them. And while a higher court ruling might hold promise, we should never have to look to them for work we ought to be doing ourselves.
The only way out, the only way back, is if do the damn work here, on our ground.
Elections have consequences. November is Coming.
