I& #39;ll say it again: if Michigan& #39;s GOP is going to accuse @GovWhitmer of violating the Constitution by taking action to save lives during a pandemic, please identify the part of the Constitution "violated."

This op-ed doesn& #39;t. And there& #39;s no violation. /1 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/04/21/opinion-constitution-protects-rights-even-during-pandemic/2995643001/">https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opi...

This op-ed--by a sitting GOP state rep--gestures vaguely to Japanese internment during WWII, and also says it would have been unconstitutional to detain Arab Americans after 9/11.

Duh. That& #39;s because those actions violated (or would have violated) the Equal Protection Clause. /2

It should go without saying (but I guess it now has to be said): the stay-at-home orders aren& #39;t at all similar. They apply to everyone--regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

There& #39;s obviously no Equal Protection violation for an order that applies to everyone equally. /3

And NOWHERE in the article is there a mention of a specific constitutional provision.

Pro-tip: that& #39;s not how you litigate constitutional cases. You don& #39;t just go to court and say "THE CONSTITUTION." The Constitution has words. You need to show how those words were violated. /4

I& #39;m not saying this to dunk on @RepJimLower& #39;s legal (non) analysis. I agree with him that "we have a Constitution for all times." And now--with fears high--Michiganders deserve to know their rights are being respected.

It& #39;s irresponsible to baselessly suggest otherwise. /fin