My Turn: A lesson on masks and rights

We Americans should know the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) proclaims our unalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But do we all know what that means and how the constitution enshrines those rights and to what extent?

There is a lot of talk going around about mask mandates violating our constitutional rights, so let’s take a look at what the courts and constitutional scholars say. In doing so we may get a better understanding of our unalienable rights, and what rights are absolute

Most objections to mask mandates are based on two arguments: they violate the right to freedom of speech and they violate our constitutional right of liberty to make decisions about our own health and bodily integrity.

Such seems to be the case of Paul Kressin, whose letter to the editor stated: “But do not abridge the liberty of others to make their own choices. Idaho is a land of liberty, Idahoan are adults, able to make their own choices about their health.”

However, in a July 27 court case, four Floridians filed suit for an injunction against Palm Beach County arguing that mask mandates “interfere with … personal liberty and constitutional rights, including the constitutionally protected right to enjoy and defend life and liberty.” The court declined, saying that “No constitutional right is infringed by the mask ordinances’ mandate.”

It said the mandate had “a clear rational basis based on the protection of public health.” They added that our constitutional rights don’t allow us to shirk our obligations to our fellow Americans and that “After all, we do not have a right to infect others.”

Courts have also ruled that vaccinations do not violate any constitutional rights or the right to care for our body in the way we think best, because there are restraints that can be imposed for the common good. The Supreme Court has ruled that states can impose restrictions if “they advance a compelling state (public) interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.”

All of our rights are subject to the doctrine of time, place, and manner based on the context of our common life in a particular place. Rights can be restricted in a particular place, at a particular time, in a particular manner if the public welfare is endangered or the rights of others are violated.

Mask mandates fall into this mix. They do not restrict the content of what you express, which usually would be unconstitutional; they just may limit how you speak. All of our rights are subject to the power of the government to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people, and they all, including free speech and freedom of religion have been restricted in some way.

We have the right to criticize and disagree with those decisions, but not at the expense of our fellow citizens. To paraphrase one constitutional scholar, a pandemic justifies certain restrictions and to believe and behave otherwise, and use the constitution as your excuse, makes it a suicide pact.

Mr. Kressin wrote, “Liberty is the balance of freedom and responsibility. It works well, especially in times of crisis.”

I agree with the first part of that statement, but as we can all see by the spike in COVID-19 cases, it is not true here. When the majority don’t wear masks, the minority suffers. Now we are in the red zone, the hospital is maxed out and schools are places of peril. The city council acted properly and within the bounds of their constitutionally delegated power under the 10th Amendment.

This very brief summary makes the point that our rights, while they are unalienable, are not absolute. They can be and often have been restricted by government action when there is a compelling public interest involved. Such is the case with the coronavirus pandemic.

I personally believe there is only one absolute right, truly unalienable, and that is the right to think and believe what you want, and to make moral choices based accordingly. We need to be true to our conscience, but when that leads us to disobey laws or policies designed to protect the public, we must be ready to accept the consequences of our actions. My moral choice is to wear a mask, not because it protects me, but because it can protect others. After all, didn’t Jesus say “do unto others …”

The constitutional principle, as shown above, is that no one has a right to infect another person with COVID-19. The mask is not to protect the wearers’ own health, but to protect the public. When one chooses not to wear it they are simply putting themselves above other people and putting those others at risk.

The responsible exercise of our freedom is to wear a mask.

• • • 

George Sayler taught government and history at CHS for 31 years and served in the Idaho Legislature for 8 years.