The Constitution was ratified before anyone accepted that germs cause disease. Even if it weren't, I doubt they'd have had the foresight to predict the vast number of radicalized buffoons who would demand the "freedom" to needlessly expose fellow citizens to a virus that's killed 250k people.

> The Constitution was ratified before anyone accepted that germs cause disease.

And yet state regulations (even once the Bill of Rights was generally -- though not, I note, explicitly) applied to states via the 14th Amendment requiring people to cover body parts in public to protect some vague combination of public health and public morality have remained in place in all 50 states.

I don't think "cover your nose and mouth in public" mandates (by the states) have any federal constitutional vulnerability as long as "cover your genitals and anus in public" mandates are widely recognized as enforceable.

Federal mandates for mask wearing in public generally would probably have to be conditional mandates on the states and/or have travel/commerce consequences for noncompliance to be secure (mandates on the states with state-level travel/commerce consequences being the most secure), though.

"Freedom" doesn't mean "do whatever people tell you not to do".

That pattern of behavior is just edgelord/trolling bullshit.

To choose not to wear a mask is not like your other examples, because it increases not only the risk to yourself, but to those around you.

I don't necessarily think your posts should be getting flagged, but you seem to be arguing in bad faith.

As another mentioned, its easy to make arguments for several of those having extended effects on others. And we legislate around that, we legislate those things to generally be allowed but socially engineered to bias away from with things like "sin taxes"

In the same way, it may be a lot more palatable to have such laws around covid, (higher tax on businesses which refuse to require masks for customers, but they're allowed to refuse if they choose etc, employees would likely still be require to mask) instead of mandated requirement to wear a mask

> it may be a lot more palatable

I somehow doubt it! I can hardly imagine a smaller burden to place on a person than to compel them to wear a mask, and yet look at the endless bickering it's caused. The idea that the people protesting mask mandates would find this tax more palatable seems completely implausible.

The whole idea about taxing away undesirable behavior is fine in general I guess, but if you think of the major effect as reducing the R0 of the virus, then why not just go further and make a full mask mandate? The smoking thing for example might have secondary effects, but not the way a /virus/ does. Is there no burden so small, no benefit to society so large, as to justify a mandate?

I would say several of those examples actually do increase increase risk to others, second hand smoke, being incapacitated by drugs or alcohol can often put others at risk for a number of reasons, etc. Furthermore, I would think that other behaviors, like having an unhealthy diet or not getting enough exercise put an increased burden on society which is borne by others, even if they are not put at risk.

A casual encounter with secondhand smoke has an exceedingly small likelihood of causing a spontaneous mutation resulting in lung cancer.

A casual encounter with a SARS-CoV-2 infected individual coughing on you without a mask can easily land someone in the ICU.

Being incapacitated by drugs and alcohol are permissible in certain situations (being in your own home), not in others (driving on the freeway).

In a similar fashion, not wearing a mask is permissible in some situations (being in your own home), not in others (standing six inches behind me in line at the grocery store).

"I would say several of those examples actually do increase increase risk to others, second hand smoke, being incapacitated by drugs or alcohol can often put others at risk for a number of reasons, etc."

which is why all those things are limited by law. I can't smoke in public spaces, I can't drive drunk, etc.

They are not 'rights' as you seem to argue, and they are limited/regulated just like a million other behaviors. Wearing a mask is no different. Personally, I'd say mask regulations are the equivalent of seatbelt laws - maybe uncomfortable, or inconvenient but basically harmless.

I don't think the constitution requires you to smoke? Just like it doesn't require you not to wear a mask. So given you can freely choose to wear a mask and help save lives and reduce the severity of this pandemic, why would you not?

This is cargo-cult thinking.

The American constitution is designed (in principle) to give Americans freedom against undue interference into their private affairs by government.

The constitution does not, and cannot, give you protection against wild animals, natural disasters, drowning, or a virus that is not sentient.

Specifically, what freedoms are those? Where are they enumerated in the text of the Constitution, its amendments, or the corpus of constitutional jurisprudence?

Citing “the freedoms guaranteed by The Constitution” is fairly meaningless in the abstract. There are specific protections and rights afforded by the Constitution that have been defined in the actual constitutional text and whose interpretation has been refined through legislation and the courts. Those are what you should be able to point to rather than vaguely gesturing at some poorly-defined concept of “freedoms.”

Not unsurprisingly, there is a record of jurisprudence permitting limitations on freedom of association, movement, etc. during public health crises. Are you suggesting that that the decisions in those cases are somehow opposed to the (actual, specific) text of the Constitution? If so, what specific provisions are being violated?

The constitution on its own doesn't guarantee any freedoms, so we must look to the Bill of Rights. Does mask wearing fall under:

- Freedom of speech? No.

- Freedom of the press? No.

- Freedom of religion? No.

- Freedom of assembly? No.

- Right to petition the government? No.

- Right to bear arms? No.

- Protection against housing soldiers in civilian homes? No.

- Protection against unreasonable search and seizure? No.

- Protection against the issuing of warrants without probable cause? No.

- Protection against trial without indictment? No.

- Protection against double jeopardy? No.

- Protection against self-incrimination? No.

- Protection against property seizure? No.

- Right to a speedy trial? No.

- Right to be informed of charges? No.

- Right to be confronted by witnesses? No.

- Right to call witnesses? No.

- Right to a legal counsel? No.

- Right to trial by jury? No.

- Protection against excessive bail? No.

- Protection against excessive fines? No.

- Protection against cruel and unusual punishment? No.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Err...isn't the Bill of Rights part of the constitution? It was added to the constitution through the amendment process, right?

Yes, but as the primary text of the constitution doesn't guarantee any rights, it's sufficient to list the rights supplied by amendments to cover "constitutional rights."