Mask directive

When it comes to the question of a mask directive and opposition to the directive let us examine the Preamble of the United States Constitution since all other national laws stem from it.

“We the people of the United States of America in Order to form a more perfect Union establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do establish this Constitution…. “

Among common primary contentions that both the US Constitution and state constitutions share in preambles is to promote the General Welfare —which in Idaho’s Constitution is crafted, “Promote our Common Welfare”. In fact, other than securing the blessings of freedom given by God it is expressly the only policy attribute in that preamble. All other issues pale to saving the public’s welfare. This means when state, county and municipal representatives swear to uphold the constitution they are upholding “Common Welfare “ as paramount. As such, the primary focus of our state and local governments is to promote the welfare of all residents.

Currently, North Idaho as an increase in individuals both transmitting and suffering from the Covid Virus 19. Given these dire conditions, local governments need to take action to quell spread. Whereas, science has proven that masking of individuals lessens spread it stands to reason that such governments need a directive requiring masks. This not only will assist the regional hospital which, even now, is filled to capacity but also safeguards those who are candidates for the virus and death by providing safety not presently activated.

While there may be some argument based on individual rights this not of concern when rights shun health and safety. Again, the issue of public safety has always been paramount in American society. For example, an individual may vociferously argue they have the right to enter the freeway the wrong way but we have rules of the road to protect the public and so under safety, this silly notion to endanger the public both on the road, and in this case, by not wearing a mask for individual rights does not carry a mandate. Therefore, quaking before ignorant bullies and acting as timid souls abrogates leadership to the whim of mob. Moreover, any acquiescence to whim is clearly a violation of the oath given to protect the public and erodes trust.

Further, since the laws of this nation, state and local governments reflect social norms when officials violate the social and legislative compact by not protecting residents there is a moral question of leadership. After all, the onset of this virus results in public suffering both financial loss physical illness or perchance death. The question of such rejection of morality is individual issue but they are easily seen as heartless and a cost easily born.

Jon Ruggles,

Wallace