This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/opinion/protesters-lockdown-constitution-covid.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Anti-Lockdown Rebels Don’t Get to Choose Their Own Constitution Anti-Lockdown Rebels Don’t Get to Choose Their Own Constitution
(32 minutes later)
In 1786, at the beginning of what became known as Shays’ Rebellion, armed rioters shut down courthouses across western and central Massachusetts to prevent judicial proceedings on unpaid debts. In New York City, the Continental Congress sat paralyzed by debates over whether the Articles of Confederation gave it the authority to suppress the uprising. One of member of that body, James Madison, later reflected that Shays’ Rebellion helped galvanize the drive for today’s Constitution by underscoring the impotence of the national government under the Articles of Confederation. In 1786, at the beginning of what became known as Shays’ Rebellion, armed rioters shut down courthouses across western and central Massachusetts to prevent judicial proceedings on unpaid debts. In New York City, the Continental Congress sat paralyzed by debates over whether the Articles of Confederation gave it the authority to suppress the uprising. One member of that body, James Madison, later reflected that Shays’ Rebellion helped galvanize the drive for today’s Constitution by underscoring the impotence of the national government under the Articles of Confederation.
In 2020, a series of demonstrations by protesters carrying semiautomatic rifles shut down the Michigan Legislature. Aggrieved by public health restrictions resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, and egged on by President Trump’s wildly irresponsible calls to “liberate” states governed by Democrats, some entered the visitors’ gallery of the State Senate and yelled at its members. Others lined up outside the office of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who was already the target of death threats. The Legislature adjourned to avoid further armed protests, unable or unwilling to protect its members. A commission with authority over the Capitol grounds, which was itself operating under threats, decided simply to study rather than to end the state’s ludicrous policy of allowing firearms on the premises.In 2020, a series of demonstrations by protesters carrying semiautomatic rifles shut down the Michigan Legislature. Aggrieved by public health restrictions resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, and egged on by President Trump’s wildly irresponsible calls to “liberate” states governed by Democrats, some entered the visitors’ gallery of the State Senate and yelled at its members. Others lined up outside the office of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who was already the target of death threats. The Legislature adjourned to avoid further armed protests, unable or unwilling to protect its members. A commission with authority over the Capitol grounds, which was itself operating under threats, decided simply to study rather than to end the state’s ludicrous policy of allowing firearms on the premises.
Rhetorically, the Michigan protesters cloaked themselves in the liberties of the same Constitution that was framed to prevent exactly what they were doing. These protests, variations on which have happened in other states, reveal not only an erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of constitutional government. Constitutions exist to enable the peaceful resolution of disputes.Rhetorically, the Michigan protesters cloaked themselves in the liberties of the same Constitution that was framed to prevent exactly what they were doing. These protests, variations on which have happened in other states, reveal not only an erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of constitutional government. Constitutions exist to enable the peaceful resolution of disputes.
The Michigan protesters have been compared to everything from terrorists to patriots to, in Mr. Trump’s inevitable words, “very good people.” Those who used weapons to inhibit the business of government are better understood as armed rebels. 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.The Michigan protesters have been compared to everything from terrorists to patriots to, in Mr. Trump’s inevitable words, “very good people.” Those who used weapons to inhibit the business of government are better understood as armed rebels. 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.
The fact that the Michigan rebels did not have to fire a shot to disrupt the duly elected government of Michigan is irrelevant. Nor does it matter whether the fantasy they were playing out was Lexington and Concord or the Wild West.The fact that the Michigan rebels did not have to fire a shot to disrupt the duly elected government of Michigan is irrelevant. Nor does it matter whether the fantasy they were playing out was Lexington and Concord or the Wild West.
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.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.
The problem is partly a misreading of the Second Amendment, whose purpose is not to maintain a low-grade revolutionary fever lest the government abuse its powers. Far from it: The reason for the Constitution was to prevent a resort to violence in politics. The Second Amendment’s primary goal, which the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence has written out of it, was to avert the need for a standing army, although it is also true that the founding generation believed a disarmed populace would encourage tyranny by making rebellion impossible.The problem is partly a misreading of the Second Amendment, whose purpose is not to maintain a low-grade revolutionary fever lest the government abuse its powers. Far from it: The reason for the Constitution was to prevent a resort to violence in politics. The Second Amendment’s primary goal, which the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence has written out of it, was to avert the need for a standing army, although it is also true that the founding generation believed a disarmed populace would encourage tyranny by making rebellion impossible.
Regardless, the Michigan rebellion reveals something deeper. By its nature, a constitution cannot contain the means of its own disintegration. The Union victory in the Civil War confirmed Abraham Lincoln’s assertion in his first inaugural: “Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”Regardless, the Michigan rebellion reveals something deeper. By its nature, a constitution cannot contain the means of its own disintegration. The Union victory in the Civil War confirmed Abraham Lincoln’s assertion in his first inaugural: “Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”
Lincoln’s deeper claim, building on the observations of the founding generation, was that the Constitution could not be destroyed “except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.” The key insight, which deprives the Michigan rebels of the constitutional mantle in which they wrapped themselves, is this: Armed insurrection may be justified by the most unbearable tyranny. Whether social distancing measures during a pandemic qualify as oppression worthy of rebellion is a separate, and dubious, question. Lincoln’s point was that taking up arms against a constitutional government, regardless of its behavior, is inherently an extraconstitutional act.Lincoln’s deeper claim, building on the observations of the founding generation, was that the Constitution could not be destroyed “except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.” The key insight, which deprives the Michigan rebels of the constitutional mantle in which they wrapped themselves, is this: Armed insurrection may be justified by the most unbearable tyranny. Whether social distancing measures during a pandemic qualify as oppression worthy of rebellion is a separate, and dubious, question. Lincoln’s point was that taking up arms against a constitutional government, regardless of its behavior, is inherently an extraconstitutional act.
Madison understood this, too. In 1835, after South Carolina’s preposterous claim that it could nullify a federal tariff provoked a national political crisis, Madison offered a series of legitimate remedies for government abuse. The first, he wrote, was the constitutional system of checks and balances itself. Failing that, the abusive government could be unseated by election. The Constitution could also be amended. But the “final course” — revolution — “must be a subject of calculation in which the degree of its oppression, the means of resistance, the consequences of its failure, and consequences of its success must be the elements.”Madison understood this, too. In 1835, after South Carolina’s preposterous claim that it could nullify a federal tariff provoked a national political crisis, Madison offered a series of legitimate remedies for government abuse. The first, he wrote, was the constitutional system of checks and balances itself. Failing that, the abusive government could be unseated by election. The Constitution could also be amended. But the “final course” — revolution — “must be a subject of calculation in which the degree of its oppression, the means of resistance, the consequences of its failure, and consequences of its success must be the elements.”
In other words, revolt inherently entails exiting the constitutional order, not claiming its protections. John Locke, whose rhetorical influence is evident in the Declaration of Independence, called rebellion “an appeal to heaven,” not a constitutional act. Locke acknowledged that, within the boundaries of civil society, “the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.” That did not mean a majority or a government elected by it was always right. It simply meant that, in the end, the choices were to accept the constituted authority or to rebel against it. As Edmund Burke put it, “Men cannot enjoy the benefits of an uncivil and of a civil state together.”In other words, revolt inherently entails exiting the constitutional order, not claiming its protections. John Locke, whose rhetorical influence is evident in the Declaration of Independence, called rebellion “an appeal to heaven,” not a constitutional act. Locke acknowledged that, within the boundaries of civil society, “the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.” That did not mean a majority or a government elected by it was always right. It simply meant that, in the end, the choices were to accept the constituted authority or to rebel against it. As Edmund Burke put it, “Men cannot enjoy the benefits of an uncivil and of a civil state together.”
There is a competing tradition of American thought. Thomas Jefferson, serving as American minister to Paris, felt the Constitutional Convention had overreacted to Shays’ Rebellion: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” he wrote in November 1787, as the proposed Constitution was pending before the states. “It is its natural manure.” Such a rebellion would be necessary, he offered, at least every 20 years.There is a competing tradition of American thought. Thomas Jefferson, serving as American minister to Paris, felt the Constitutional Convention had overreacted to Shays’ Rebellion: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” he wrote in November 1787, as the proposed Constitution was pending before the states. “It is its natural manure.” Such a rebellion would be necessary, he offered, at least every 20 years.
That is better poetry than political thought. Jefferson was stuck in a revolutionary mind-set when the nation whose independence he helped declare had moved on to the challenges of governing. Constitutions are formed precisely to avoid the kind of routine bloodshed Jefferson celebrated. Without public authority, Thomas Hobbes famously noted, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes concluded that authoritarianism was the only alternative to anarchy. Anglo-American constitutionalism proceeded elsewhere. But Hobbes’s basic point that one must ultimately choose between the protection of civil society and the risk of rebellion maintains its lineage through Locke to Madison and Lincoln.That is better poetry than political thought. Jefferson was stuck in a revolutionary mind-set when the nation whose independence he helped declare had moved on to the challenges of governing. Constitutions are formed precisely to avoid the kind of routine bloodshed Jefferson celebrated. Without public authority, Thomas Hobbes famously noted, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes concluded that authoritarianism was the only alternative to anarchy. Anglo-American constitutionalism proceeded elsewhere. But Hobbes’s basic point that one must ultimately choose between the protection of civil society and the risk of rebellion maintains its lineage through Locke to Madison and Lincoln.
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.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 (@GregWeiner1) is a political scientist at Assumption College, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “The Political Constitution: The Case Against Judicial Supremacy.”Greg Weiner (@GregWeiner1) is a political scientist at Assumption College, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “The Political Constitution: The Case Against Judicial Supremacy.”
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.