[fivea]

> For context, these might be some of the most broad and assertive challenges ever made on constitutional freedoms.

The US has organized, in recent history, concentration camps based on the premise that national security was at stake.

More recently, the US employed secret prisons to torture people who were deemed persons of interest, both foreign and US citizens.

I'd figure that requiring basic personal higiene and public health measures, such as wearing a mask in public places to avoid spreading a disease which is already killed well over 800k US citizens, shouldn't even register as a concern regarding "constitutional freedoms". Yet, why is this only a concern, and the "most broad and assertive" one to boot, regarding constitutional rights in the US?

[seba_dos1]

It's extremely simple - that's because the people complaining about masks were not in these concentration camps and were not tortured in secret prisons, while it's them who have to wear masks. Therefore, what you mentioned didn't really exist in practice, and being forced to maintain hygiene during a deadly pandemic is the most broad and assertive violation on constitutional rights.

[fivea]

> It's extremely simple - that's because the people complaining about masks were not in these concentration camps and were not tortured in secret prisons, while it's them who have to wear masks.

You see, that assertion does not pass any smell test. Think about it: any discussion, and complain, regarding the constitutionality of any policy is purely conceptual and abstract, and the conclusion is always absolute: either the constitution is violated, or it isn't.

Therefore, if anyone is honestly worried about the constitutional implications of a policy, they do not care if it affects everyone or even anyone. The discussion is purely conceptual: either the constitution is violated, and thus it must be upheld, or not.

With this in mind, any discussion on extrajudicial imprisonments, violations of the Geneva convention, and even extrajudicial assassinations, feature at the top of any concern.

And not whether you need to wash your hands or wear a face mask.

Think about it: how many times did the constitutionality of jailing people for pooping on the street was discussed in an election? Did fining people for not picking up their dog's poop ever became a divisive political talking point? Did you ever saw radical militant groups threatening with political action for being barred from urinating in public? Never, right?

[seba_dos1]

> Therefore, if anyone is honestly worried about the constitutional implications of a policy

This is the important part. They aren't worried about the constitution, they're worried that they have to do something they don't want to.