Civil Liberties and the Constitution

The civil liberties that have been granted by the Constitution are neither unlimited nor universal. This is clearly visible in the differing reactions of police, between the armed protests in Michigan against the COVID-19 lockdowns and the ironic, forceful police response to protests against police violence in the Black community.

Constitutional law scholars have shown time and time again that the individual rights of citizens must be balanced with the interests of society as a whole. This may mean infringing on the rights of individuals, or at least the appearance of doing so from certain perspectives. The specific virtues of doing so have been debated endlessly throughout the history of the nation. Likely, this debate will continue, especially in light of the underlying social issues that the COVID-19 pandemic and the killing of George Floyd have surfaced. Regardless, we are lucky to be in a society where despite such infringements, we can expect that these rights are quickly returned as a situation diffuses.

It interesting to look at the different responses to protests in order to glean a more comprehensive understanding of the rhetorical warrants that underscore the arguments presented by citizens, the current Administration, and scholars.

In response to the lockdowns from the COVID-19 pandemic, armed protesters with semi-automatic rifles assembled at the Michigan Capitol building. These protesters frame their methods as a way to uphold their rights to bear arms. While not inherently inimical, looking at the impact of their tactics can help elucidate their true intentions. As a result of the armed protests, the Legislature was adjourned. Weiner reframes their tactics, stating that “Those who [use] weapons to inhibit the business of government are better understood as armed rebels.”

Even so, the armed rebels expect that their rights are not infringed upon. They expect Constitutional protection despite actions that are directly opposed to the very purpose of the Constitution to “enable the peaceful resolution of disputes” and “prevent a resort to violence in politics” (Weiner, 2020).

“There is no reasonable claim that their weapons were necessary for self-defense — unless, that is, they planned to use them against law officers. The only reason to stand over a session of the State Senate wielding military-grade weapons is to intimidate its members, a goal in which the rebels succeeded” (Weiner, 2020). It is clear that their intentions were against the country and the Constitution.

If the armed rebels were truly concerned about an abusive government policy, there are Constitutional methods in which to remedy such abuse. The tactics used by armed rebels “inherently entails exiting the constitutional order, not claiming its protections” (Weiner, 2020).

Locke argues that “the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.” This means that when the majority agrees, the government has the authority to make, and implement, decisions that all must follow. It is important to note, however, that these decisions may not always be “right.” When this happens, Weiner points out that, “in the end, the choices were to accept the constituted authority or to rebel against it.”

The question in Michigan and other scenes of armed protests against coronavirus restrictions is not whether states have struck the proper balance between public health and other considerations. Nor is it even whether governments have exceeded their legitimate authority. The question the would-be rebels must answer is whether social-distancing measures are so tyrannical that they are willing to take the extraconstitutional step of rebellion. They can either claim or relinquish the Constitution’s protections. They cannot have both.

Greg Weiner

In this respect, they differ in both motive and objective from the protesters raging against police violence in Minneapolis and elsewhere. The tactics of both groups have unraveled. But the complaint against police violence is against officers of the state breaking the law, not lawfully making policy in the first place.

Greg Weiner

Dossier

“Anti-Lockdown Rebels Don’t Get to Choose Their Own Constitution,” by Greg Weiner, May 31, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/opinion/protesters-lockdown-constitution-covid.html