To the editor:
Protection of individual freedom or liberties is among the essential elements of our democracy. The most important of these liberties are enumerated in the United States Bill of Rights and others emerge out of statutory law and judicial rulings. As a result of the central role individual liberties play in our democracy, legal controversies frequently arise in which the assertion of governmental power is challenged as an abridgement of an individual freedom. In some cases the controversy is decided by a court in favor of the sovereign and in other cases the court decides the controversy in favor of the individual. There is no single judicial doctrine that applies to all such controversies but one of the guiding principles involves the balancing of the government objective in acting against the particular individual liberty restricted. This principle recognizes that some governmental objectives are more compelling than others and that some individual liberties are more central to an ordered scheme of liberty than others. When this judicial principle is applied, we can expect the governmental assertion of power advancing a compelling governmental objective will prevail over the assertion of a less significant non-delineated individual freedom.
Let us apply the principle discussed above to the current controversies surrounding government mandates that require individuals to wear appropriate face coverings in certain situations and/or to receive a vaccination for protection against COVID-19. The government objective is to protect the health of the public against a particularly contagious virus that has killed over 600,000 U.S. inhabitants, hospitalized hundreds of thousands more and sickened millions of others by ordering masks and COVID-19 vaccines which medical science has determined are our best tools to conquer the virus. Most would conclude that this is a compelling governmental objective. We then weigh the compelling governmental objective against the asserted individual liberties to not wear a mask and not be vaccinated. How central are these asserted freedoms to the future of our democracy. I will leave it up to your power of human reasoning to decide whether the assertion of governmental power or the assertion of individual freedom ought to prevail in this controversy.
Beyond all the legal considerations discussed above is the citizen responsibility to join in the shared sacrifice or minor inconvenience to wear a mask under some circumstances and get vaccinated if not exempted and eligible in order to advance the common good. Equally important is the need for governmental officials to do their duty to protect the health of the public by supporting medical science during this time of crisis. Recall that promotion of the general welfare is among the primary reasons “We the People “ordained and established our constitution. I shudder to think what the outcome of WWII might have been if 40% of our population had refused to share in the war sacrifice by doing their part, large or small, in order to realize victory. I do not believe Tom Brokaw will be quick to refer to our present generation as America’s latest great generation if we continue on our current course.
Robert Burns, Brookings, S.D.
