War on Freedom

Commentary: Where are lockdowns in the Constitution?

on . Posted in War on Freedom

By Jacob G. Hornberger

November 17, 2020 - With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency (which will never happen), this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?

When the Constitution called the federal government into existence, the premise was that this would be a government of limited powers. If the Constitution didn’t delegate a certain power to the federal government, then federal officials were precluded from exercising it.

One can search the Constitution for as long as he wants, but he will never find any grant of power to the federal government to enact mandatory lockdowns, Centers for Disease Control, the DEA, Medicare or Medicaid.

That’s the way the Framers wanted it. That’s the way our ancestors wanted it at the time of the founding of the United States. If the Constitution had proposed a federal government with general or unlimited powers, it never would have been adopted.

Is there a crisis exception in the Constitution? There is not. The Framers understood that crises are the time-honored way by which people lose their rights, liberty, and well-being at the hands of their own government. The last thing they would have approved of was a provision in the Constitution authorizing the exercise of prohibited powers during times of crisis.

Some of Joe Biden’s supporters are advising him to let the states decide whether a lockdown is advisable within their particular part of the country. Does the Constitution authorize the states to impose lockdowns or, for that matter, enact measures to battle pandemics?

While the Constitution established a federal government with limited, enumerated powers, it was different with respect to the states. The states were authorized to enact whatever laws they wanted, unless a particular power was expressly prohibited in the Constitution. This makes sense given that the prevailing mindset at the time was that the states were independent, sovereign entities coming together in a voluntary pact with each other.

Of course, many state constitutions restricted the powers of their own state and local governments.

The states’ powers fell under the general powers of a government to enact what are known as the traditional “police powers” of government - i.e., laws intended to protect the “health, safety, morals, and welfare” of the citizenry.

State officials, therefore, would justify a lockdown under the traditional police powers of the state - that is, as a measure to protect the health of the citizenry.

However, the original concept of state powers was modified by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Due process of law means notice and hearing or trial. When the state (or a city within a state) imposes a statewide (or citywide) lockdown, it is not providing due process to the individual. It is taking people’s liberty (i.e., economic liberty) and their property (i.e., their business or livelihood) without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every federal judge in the land should be declaring state and local lockdowns in violation of the Constitution.

The problem is twofold:

One, ever since the Franklin Roosevelt (regime), the Supreme Court and federal judiciary have made it clear that they will never again enforce the Constitution against either the federal government or the states on matters relating to economic activity or healthcare. In this regard, the federal courts have abrogated the responsibility they were given to declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional.

Two, the Amerikan people have been indoctrinated into passively accepting the notion that both the federal government and the state governments should have the general power to provide healthcare and other welfare to people and to protect them from the vicissitudes of life, including pandemics.

Thus, a necessary prerequisite to a free society is an enlightened judiciary, one that is unafraid to enforce the Constitution against both the federal government and the states. To make it easy for Supreme Court justices and federal judges to understand their duty, the ideal would be to enact a constitutional amendment stating the following: “No law shall be enacted by either the national or state governments respecting the regulation or provision of healthcare, or abridging the free exercise thereof.”

To regain our freedom, health and well-being, it is imperative that there be a reawakening among the Amerikan people, one that induces them to seek a deeper understanding of what freedom really means and to prize liberty above all else. Once a critical mass of Amerikans understand that freedom necessarily entails a separation of healthcare and the state, America will be on the road to a genuinely free, healthy, prosperous and free society.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. Send him email here. [LINK: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

Freedom
2003-2018

Freedom sm

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison

STAN LEE
1922-2018

stan lee

CARL REINER
1922-2020

Carl Reiner

SEAN CONNERY
1930-2020

dwight clark