When ‘emergency’ becomes routine, civic rights are lost

The author challenges the prevailing sentiment that states of emergency are solely a concern for criminals, a view often expressed by self-described "law-abiding citizens." This perspective suggests that if one adheres to the law, the suspension of constitutional rights during emergencies should not be a personal issue.

However, the article posits that this argument falters when considering the permanent codification of such suspensions. If emergency measures truly do not affect law-abiding citizens, then making them permanent should, in theory, be inconsequential to their daily lives. The author suspects that many who dismiss current concerns would strongly oppose making these rights suspensions permanent, revealing a deeper, perhaps unacknowledged, understanding of their importance.

Constitutional rights, the piece argues, derive their value not just from their exercise but from their very existence. They serve as crucial limitations on state power and essential protections against arbitrary government actions. These rights were established not for the convenience of the law-abiding or the popular, but because history demonstrates governments' inherent tendency to accumulate and abuse power when left unchecked.

A state of emergency is intended as an extraordinary, temporary measure to address exceptional circumstances. The justification for temporarily restricting rights hinges on the understanding that the threat is transient and that normal protections will be reinstated promptly. Yet, when these "temporary" measures are repeatedly extended, becoming the "new normal," citizens must question when an emergency ceases to be an emergency.

The article concludes by warning that rights surrendered are seldom regained without significant struggle, and powers granted to one administration eventually transfer to others. The author urges readers to consider that the authority granted to current leaders, whom they may trust, will one day be wielded by others they might not. Therefore, constitutional rights are vital safeguards for all, protecting against potential overreach, not merely shielding criminals.