Protest is fine, but law is the law

Today, I am “open” to suggestions.

At noon on Friday, a motorcade of cars are scheduled to circle City Hall, horns blaring, occupants safely-distanced inside, to protest Philadelphia’s endless lockdown. They want Mayor Jim Kenney to unlock the city.

Kenney said he is fine with peaceful protests, which is what is being called for on social media, but it will not change his mind.

For the record, I support the continuing lockdown as Philadelphia is still a hot spot for infection. 

I also support the protest because it is a Constitutional guarantee, right there in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Not surprisingly, in some corners of the Internet, the protest was categorized as “far right.” Meaning the First Amendment is “far right”? To some, maybe it is — thinking here of the Second Amendment, the right to own firearms. Or maybe because the participation of the knucklehead Proud Boys was rumored.

Here’s why the protestors will not get Kenney’s attention: They are not “returning (from jail) citizens,” they are not illegals. They are average, tax-paying Philadelphians, wanting to open their businesses or return to work. They are not claiming minority status or victimization, which is what it seems you need to get attention in Philadelphia. 

The desire to work was illustrated in Dallas a few days ago when a hair salon owner opened in defiance of the city’s order to remain closed and tore up a cease and desist order.  She was cited and hauled into court, where the judge called her “selfish” and demanded an apology.

She refused, saying she would not apologize for earning money to feed her children. The judge sentenced her to seven days, fined her $7,000 and said, “The rule of law governs us. People cannot take it upon themselves to determine what they will and will not do.”

Unless they are in a Sanctuary City. On Thursday, the state supreme court ordered her release.

I don’t believe she was “selfish,” but she did break the law. Civil disobedience is a tactic that has been used by, say, the civil rights movement in the past, and it requires you pay the price, meaning you will go to jail to highlight the unfairness of the law. Remember Rev. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”? He was jailed for protesting what he saw as injustice.

While we are talking about the law, Mayor Kenney used executive orders to close businesses, demand face masks in public, and social distances between people in public. Violators face fines, as I noted the other day.

But a former high city official, whom I spoke to on condition of anonymity, told me he doubts the mayor has the authority to enforce such orders.

I emailed the mayor’s office with this question: 

“Can you provide the legal justification by which an executive order, complete with penalties for noncompliance, has the effect of law, when it has not been approved by the legislative branch.” No answer by deadline.

If the orders are either illegal or not enforceable, I asked the former official, where is the ACLU?

They have their own motives, he replied.

So I emailed the ACLU to ask about the mayor’s authority. No answer by deadline.

Several of President Donald J. Trump’s executive orders have been overturned by the courts, but I could find no evidence of challenges to executive orders by governors and mayors.

So here’s my dilemma: I am a by-the-book, obey-the-law kind of guy in the skin of a quasi-libertarian who believes in maximum freedom for the individual, because that is the foundation of Americanism.

So it’s a spilt decision — protest peacefully, let your voices be heard, but wait until your elected representatives say it is safe. Or accept the consequences.

I am still for erring on the side of caution.