COVID-19 protestors use 14th Amendment for their position. Some of it makes sense, some not so much

      “What I understand here is that Richard Johnson has a reading comprehension problem. Every section cited has to do with actuality where ‘an infection’ is first found, thereby allowing the health officer to quarantine the sick or places and property where by ‘personal inspection’ by the health officer has been deemed to be infected. Quarantining healthy individuals and property is the opposite. – state Sen. Anthony Bouchard, R-Laramie County (commenting on Johnson’s recent post (https://bit.ly/2YtZ4dc) about quarantine constitutionality)

BY RICHARD JOHNSON

       To most people, any opposing opinion posted on your storyline is grounds for getting blocked. I don’t have time for that anymore.
        I unblocked everyone over a year ago. If I didn’t want comments from people who think differently than me, maybe I shouldn’t write these articles. Same goes for state Rep. Scott Clem (R-Gillette) when a post he wrote “triggered" me to write my previous piece.
         Once again, Clem doesn’t unfriend me or block me. I comment on his page and we banter back and forth on Messenger. He doesn’t ignore my questions or comments and always writes back for some reason, even though we disagree on almost every topic.

        This time he challenged me to write another piece. So here is a recap of the conversation:

        CLEM:  Not bad. Too bad you didn't consider the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or the definition of “quarantine”

Recent COVID-19 protestors at the Capitol in Lansing, Mich.

in those same statutes, which applies to sick people as opposed to healthy. Or the section in the Wyoming Constitution that guards against absolute and arbitrary power.
Speaking of that, why is it okay to go to the store, but not a restaurant? Where's the data that suggests one is more dangerous than the other?
        Since the governor doesn't create law, when did the Legislature convene and make a law that says you must wear a mask and get your temperature taken to get a haircut? And why do you have to do that there, and not when you go to Home Depot? How is that not arbitrary? One cannot look at this myopically. Research all that and write another article.

        ME: "Do you believe the AG office is not consulted before decisions are implemented?"

        CLEM: "I wonder what AG said about this?
        Amendment XIV (U.S. Constitution)
        Section 1.
       All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What due process took place that allows the Gov't to deprive people of their liberty and property?"

       ME: "Let me think on that.”

  I later told him I'd send out a question to stylists, barbers, and tattooist. The question was: Do you believe that your 14th amendment was violated for due process by having to close, wear a mask and take temperatures? Here are a few of the answers:

       Tattooist: "I believe the 14th amendment was violated when it gave corporations individual rights.”
       Stylist: “I quit caring about my rights when I lost most of them due to my felonious activities as a youth.”
       Tattooist: "There are more amendments than one and two? As long as nobody is kneeling during our drunken National Anthem, I’m good. However, in all seriousness I think it should have happened sooner and I think everyone is jumping the gun a bit by not complying and by opening sooner. However, I’ve never been good at following rules and I like making money so ..."
       Barber: “I feel like I work for the government, not myself. I feel like I should have never have been told to close and do the procedures put in place as of May 1. They don’t have Walmart take temperatures, enforce a mask. It’s a bunch of BS. It's amazing how I can’t have a waiting area, but grocery stores wait behind each other in line to pay for purchases."
       Another person started messaging me surprised I wasn’t more supportive of protesting against unconstitutional measures, even though I could copy and paste laws that supported my argument. It kind of went down like this:
       "I don’t know.  There are certainly constitutional questions that aren’t resolved by the citation to some relatively broad and ambiguous statutes. That said and just like any protest, many of those protesting are certainly not legal scholars. But I don’t subscribe to the notion that just because the executive issues some sort of order that I shouldn’t question its legality and constitutionality.  So, on this one, I disagree.
       Remember, most statutes are not going to be declared unconstitutional on their face (that is exceedingly rare) What might be unconstitutional is how the statute is applied through executive order.  And there have been numerous executive orders issued by various local governments throughout the U.S. that are likely not to be constitutional if challenged. You can’t legislate every circumstance. You know that. Issues always arise that were relatively unforeseen.
       “I’d love to see you write a follow-up because I have to say that I was surprised to see an article from you that discourages people from protesting or otherwise questions the legality of what their governments are doing. But just because I don’t like someone, I’m not going to call in to question their right to assemble and protest. And I’m certainly never going to take the position that the executive is right because they are looking out for our health and safety, damned be our constitutional rights.
       “My thoughts are the Legislature should narrowly tailor its statutes. The governor has arguable legislative authority to interpret and apply the statutes as he has. But the executive cannot apply statutes in ways that result in unconstitutional actions and the governor has likely done this in my mind. Due process is a foundation of both a part of the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions."
       See, I know people way smarter than me! Which steered into another conversation.
Check out Wyo. Const. Art. 10 Sec. 2 Emphasis on the last sentence. Art. 7 Sec 20 is pretty interesting too.

       Article 10, Section 2.
All powers and franchises of corporations are derived from the people and are granted by their agent, the government, for the public good and general welfare, and the right and duty of the state to control and regulate them for these purposes is hereby declared.
       Article 7 Section 20:
Duty of Legislature to Protect and Promote Health and Morality of People
As the health and morality of the people are essential to their well-being, and to the peace and permanence of the state, it shall be the duty of the legislature to protect and promote these vital interests by such measures for the encouragement of temperance and virtue, and such restrictions upon vice and immorality of every sort, as are deemed necessary to the public welfare.

       Of course there is that due process thing in the 14th Amendment which popped up in another messaging thread:

       Another part of the saga regarding the "necessity" of the 14th Amendment was the final decision of the Marshall Court, "Barron v. Baltimore (1833)" involving a lawsuit against the city of Baltimore by a man whose wharf was ruined due to soil erosion. Mr. Barron sued the city claiming a violation of the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment. The Marshall Court — Chief Justice John Marshall — insisted that all decisions were to be unanimous to prevent political snipping at the court, and give the public a sense of trust in the integrity of the court.
       In "Barron" the Court held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the national (federal) government and not the states. Hence, the wording in the 14th Amendment, driven by Calhoun's (et al) "Theory of Nullification (could be claimed that Jefferson and Madison too project such a claim in their "Kentucky and Virginia Resolves" in protests of Adams' "Alien and Sedition Acts")", specifically places the state under scrutiny with a) the definition of citizenship (in the past such a definition was left up to the states), then applies the due process and privileges and immunities clauses to the states. (Here is Barron https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/)
       The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.
       Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833): The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual …
And then the contradictory opinion of Barron v Baltimore is not good law anymore and hasn’t been for 150 some years. The 14th amendment specifically made the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments.

       I really don’t feel like copying and pasting The Public Health Service Act of 1944, The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006, Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 because that would just bore you to tears.
       People ask me what the government is doing while we are distracted by the newest war, the newest impeachment, the newest pandemic. I don’t remember AR-15-laden gents at the Capitol steps protesting in any of these years over any of these acts. I guess I’m just oblivious.
       So, I’m guessing these aren’t the conversations you have on Facebook Messenger. To some of you, this is so boring you quit reading when I hid an eggplant emoji in the first paragraph.
       For me it gives me hope. That even though we have differing opinions we can still communicate.
Imagine if they worked this hard at getting constitutional reform instead of  writing me, a non-constituent. We can all reply like my friend and adviser Chris, who pointed out so eloquently:
       “Rich I'm not a crybaby bitch. We do what we need to do, and if all of this is blown out of proportion, which I'm pretty sure it is, that sucks. But at some point, a serious pathogen will come down the pipe and, although we'll probably be woefully unprepared, again, maybe we will be a little better off.
       “Maybe? Good luck to these (expletive deleted) who think they're going to file lawsuits against the states or federal government, for that matter, I hope they have the big bucks for getting drained in litigation.”

       Richard Johnson is a former member of the City Council from Cheyenne’s east side.