The Seven Walls of Fortress America, Part IV

The Unanticipated Sixth Wall and the Breaches Thereof

The Messenger quailed and gave back as if menaced with a blow. ‘I am a herald and ambassador and may not be assailed!’ he cried. ‘Where such laws hold,’ said Gandalf, ‘it is also the custom for ambassadors to use less insolence. But no one has threatened you. You have naught to fear from us, until your errand is done.” — J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

Freedom is always under siege from the roving bandits that seek to tyrannize and plunder the free. To protect themselves, the Founding Fathers of the United States erected the Constitution as a citadel of freedom. Like Minas Tirith, it was built with seven walls. From outer to inner, the walls are:

1. A written constitution.

2. A vertical separation of powers.

3. A horizontal separation of powers.

4. A government of enumerated powers.

5. A government of mixed type.

6. A bill of enumerated rights.

7. A militia of the people.

All seven walls have been breached. Three weeks ago we discussed the collapse of the first three walls, two weeks ago we documented the collapse of the fourth wall, and last week we discussed the obliteration and paving over of the fifth wall. This week we’ll introduce the sixth wall. Unlike the prior five walls, the sixth wall is still standing, though it has been breached many times. The irony of the sixth wall is that it wasn’t even supposed to have been built in the first place.

A Bill of Enumerated Rights

The Wall: The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights spells out specific individual liberties and protections that the federal government must respect, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the right to bear arms. It also outlines certain protections for citizens, such as the right to a fair trial and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It establishes limits on the power of the federal government intended to prevent the government from infringing on individual liberties without due process of law.

The Bill of Rights is nowadays considered the most important component of the U.S. Constitution and has influenced the development of individual rights and freedoms around the world. It is widely considered a cornerstone of American democracy and a symbol of our country's commitment to individual liberty.

What is altogether remarkable and largely forgotten today is that the Bill of Rights wasn’t supposed to be part of the Constitution at all. It is, after all, a set of amendments to the Constitution, not part of the text that the Framers wrote in the Convention.

The Bill of Rights was not actually added to the Constitution until 1791, and that addition was largely at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitution as written.

The authors of the Federalist Papers had strongly opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, because they believed that it was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. According to the Federalists, the Constitution itself was a bill of rights, as it limited the powers of the federal government and protected the rights of the people through the separation of powers and checks and balances. The Federalists argued that listing specific rights would be interpreted as implying that these were the only rights the people possessed, and that adding a bill of rights would thus create confusion and lead to the misinterpretation of the Constitution.

In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?… It has been several times truly remarked, that a bill of rights is, in its origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.

In Federalist No. 85, Hamilton goes further, writing:

The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.

According to Hamilton, then, the American people did not need to be protected by a bill of rights because the Constitution was not a compact between king and subject but between a republican government and a free people, and the nature of the republican government itself made it a living bill of rights.

The Anti-Federalists saw things differently. They insisted that the government needed to explicitly state and protect the individual liberties of citizens. They argued that the Constitution, as written, gave too much power to the federal government and did not adequately protect the rights of the people. They wanted the new constitution to explicitly state that individuals had the right to bear arms, to ensure that the government could not disarm the people and leave them vulnerable to attack. And they saw a bill of rights as necessary to ensure that the government did not overstep its bounds and become tyrannical, as had happened in other countries with strong central governments without one.

The Anti-Federalists are little-studied today, having been overshadowed by the Federalists who defeated them. But in their day they were men of great reputation and it’s worth considering their arguments — at least those relating to the bill of rights, where they won a partial victory.

Anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan, writing as “Centinel” for the Independent Gazetteer in 1787, argued that the exclusion of a bill of rights was a deliberate choice on the part of men like Hamilton, who aimed to establish an aristocracy cloaked in democracy:

The organization of [the US Constitution’s] government…. appears devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.

The framers of it, actuated by the true spirit of such a government, which ever abominates and suppresses all free enquiry and discussion, have made no provision for the liberty of the press, that grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants, but observed a total silence on that head. It is the opinion of some great writers, that if the liberty of the press, by an institution of religion, or otherwise, could be rendered sacred, even in Turkey, that despotism would fly before it. And it is worthy of remark, that there is no declaration of personal rights, premised in most free constitutions; and that trial by jury in civil cases is taken away.

Luther Martin, writing as “A Landholder” in a letter to the Maryland Gazette, also saw the failure to include a Bill of Rights as a deliberate omission designed to create a government of “unlimited powers”:

Those who would wish you to believe that the faults in the system proposed are wholly or principally owing to the difference of state interests, and proceed from that cause, are either imposed upon themselves, or mean to impose upon you…. [W]hat state is there in the union whose interest would prompt it to give the general government the extensive and unlimited powers it possesses in the executive, legislative and judicial departments, together with the powers over the militia, and the liberty of establishing a standing army without any restriction? Or what state is there that would have been averse to a bill of rights, or that would have wished for the destruction of jury trial in a great variety of cases, and in a particular manner in every case without exception where the government itself is interested? These parts of the system, so far from promoting the interest of any state, or states, have an immediate tendency to annihilate all the state governments indiscriminately, and to subvert their rights and the rights of their citizens.

John Dewitt, writing as “An Old Whig,” used the theory of natural liberty that Jefferson had espoused in the Declaration of Independence to condemn the proposed Constitution:

Men when they enter into society yield up a part of their natural liberty, for the sake of being protected by government… To define what portion of his natural liberty, the subject shall at the time be entitled to retain is one great end of a bill of rights. To these may be added in a bill of rights some particular engagements of protection, on the part of the government. Without such a bill of rights firmly securing the privileges of the subject, the government is always in danger of degenerating into tyranny… Hence it is that we find the patriots, in all ages of the world, so very solicitous to obtain explicit engagements from their rulers, stipulating expressly for the preservation of particular rights and privileges.

Richard Henry Lee, writing as “Federal Farmer” in Letter XVI to The Republican, argued that Constitution was not drafted in such away as to make the bill of rights superfluous, despite the Federalist’s insistence otherwise:

Gentlemen who oppose a federal bill of rights, or further declaratory articles, seem to view the subject in a very narrow imperfect manner… [They claim] that all power is reserved not expressly given, that particular enumerated powers only are given, that all others are not given, but reserved, and that it is needless to attempt to restrain congress in the exercise of powers they possess not. This reasoning is logical… but the constitution does not appear to respect it even in any view.

To prove this, I might cite several clauses in it. By article 1, section 9, “No title of nobility shall be granted by congress.” Was this clause omitted, what power would congress have to make titles of nobility? in what part of the constitution would they find it? The answer must be, that congress would have no such power—that the people, by adopting the constitution, will not part with it. Why then by a negative clause, restrain congress from doing what it would have no power to do? This clause, then, must have no meaning, or imply, that were it omitted, congress would have the power in question, either upon the principle that some general words in the constitution may be so construed as to give it, or on the principle that congress possess the powers not expressly reserved.

Even a cautionary provision implies a doubt, at least, that it is necessary; and if so in this case, clearly it is also alike necessary in all similar ones. The fact appears to be, that the people in forming the confederation, and the convention, in this instance, acted, naturally, they did not leave the point to be settled by general principles and logical inferences; but they settle the point in a few words, and all who read them at once understand them.

The Constitution was ultimately ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Of those nine, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island demanded that a bill of rights be added as part of their ratification. Without those states, the Constitution would not have been enacted. But notice the narrow margin! The Anti-Federalist victory was nearly a defeat.

The miserable state of American liberty today merits us asking, “Who was right?” in this historic debate. Federalists would argue that our situation today is exactly what they warned about: Because we have a Bill of Rights, the federal government is assumed to be able to do everything except intrude on those rights. But Anti-Federalists would argue that the situation today is exactly what they warned about: The structural framework that was supposed to limit government power totally failed, and the Bill of Rights turned out to be the only protection we have.

It’s impossible to turn back the clock to run the American experiment again, but I’m inclined to believe the Anti-Federalists had the right of it. The breaching of the first five walls would have occurred with or without a bill of rights. And the sorry state of the right to free speech and bear arms in the United Kingdom offers implicit proof that without a written constitution with fixed rights, anything can and does go.

The First Breach: The first breach of the Sixth Wall came less than a decade after the Bill of Rights was passed. The notorious Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress in 1798 during a period of heightened tensions with France, who was seen as a potential threat to the United States. The laws were aimed at restricting immigration and limiting the freedom of speech and press. The laws were as follows:

1. The Alien Act: Gave the President the power to deport non-citizens deemed dangerous to the country, without due process.

2. The Alien Enemies Act: Allowed for the detention or deportation of male citizens of an enemy country during a time of war.

3. The Sedition Act: Made it a crime to publish false, scandalous, or malicious writing about the government or its officials with the intent to defame or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

4. Naturalization Act: Extended the time required for an immigrant to become a citizen from five years to 14 years.

These laws were seen by many, notably Thomas Jefferson and his Democrat-Republican allies, as a violation of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and press, and the Fifth Amendment's protection of due process. The Sedition Act was particularly controversial and was used to prosecute several newspaper editors who criticized the government and its policies.

It is a sad truth that the very Federalists who argued that a bill of rights wasn’t necessary were the first to prove it was.

The Second Breach: The second great breach in the Sixth Wall came during the American Civil War. While today lionized as a champion of democracy, President Abraham Lincoln at the time faced severe criticism for actions he took that were seen as violating the rights of US citizens protected by the Bill of Rights. Some of the more notorious such actions include:

1. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus: Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which protects against arbitrary detention, in certain areas in order to prevent dissent and maintain public safety during the war. This was clearly a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.

2. Arrest and detention of political opponents: Lincoln authorized the arrest and detention of political opponents who were deemed to be a threat to the war effort. This included newspaper editors and politicians who criticized the war or the administration's policies. These arrests were violations of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and the Fifth Amendment's protection of due process.

3. Censorship of the press: Lincoln authorized direct censorship of the press, which seems a clear violation of the First Amendment's protection of their freedom.

4. Confiscation of private property: The Union army seized private property, including newspapers and printing presses, in Confederate-held territory during the war. This was arguably a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of taking private property without fair compensation.

It's important to note that these actions were taken during a time of great national crisis. Most Americans today would defend Lincoln’s actions as “necessary and proper” to the defense of the Union and the abolition of slavery. Necessary or not, they established an unfortunate precedent that in wartime the Bill of Rights would be tossed aside, and this would prove calamitous when the US government began to declare war on drugs, terrorism, and coronavirus.

The Expansion of the Wall: One of the most overlooked characteristics of the Bill of Rights is that it originally only applied to the federal government. It didn’t bind the state governments at all. The state governments had their own constitutions with their own bills of rights, and they were generally seen by the early Americans as far more protective of their citizen’s liberties.

It wasn't until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1868 that the provisions of the Bill of Rights began to be “incorporated against the states” through the process of "selective incorporation." The Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War, required that states respect the “privileges and immunities” of U.S. citizens and provide “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws” to all persons within their jurisdiction. Most Constitutional historians admit that the intent of the privileges and immunities clause, in particular, was to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to prevent abuses by state governments.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was, however, almost immediately castrated in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases. In this case, a group of Louisiana butchers challenged a state law claiming that it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause extremely narrowly, holding that it only protected a limited set of rights that were considered fundamental to national citizenship… such as the right to use navigable waterways and the right to access the seaports.¹

This narrow interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause limited its potential to be used as a tool for incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states and resulted in the so-called “selective” approach to incorporating individual rights. Under the “selective” approach, each right within the Bill of Rights is reviewed by the Supreme Court to decide whether it is “so fundamental” as to be inherent in “due process” and “equal protection” of the law.

If this sounds like torturous mutilation of the plain language of the Constitution in order to avoid admitting the Slaughterhouse Cases were wrongly decided… it is. As a result, the Bill of Rights does not fully protect the rights of U.S. citizens against state action. It only protects some of them, the ones the Supreme Court has decided are really important. This has contributed to the further erosion of the wall.

To extend our Tolkienesque metaphor, the 14th Amendment might be understood as having created a number of smaller, partial walls to be built around other citadels of American government. It did nothing to repair the breaches that already existed in the real wall, and the shoddy craftsmanship made the entire defense weaker.

The Third Breach: The Sixth Wall was breached for a third time during World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson enacted a number of laws and policies that were grossly violative of the Bill of Rights.

The two worst offenses were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act. The 1917 Espionage Act made it a federal crime to interfere with military operations, incite insubordination in the military, or support the country's enemies. Unfortunately, the provision banning “support” for the country’s enemies was used to prosecute individuals for expressing anti-war opinions, in total violation of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech.

The Sedition Act followed in 1918. The Sedition Act made it a crime to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the government, the flag, or the military. This act, too, was used to prosecute individuals for expressing anti-war opinions, another violation of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. “Congress shall pass no law…”

Thereafter the Wilson administration began censoring mail, including political mail, another violation of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It also conducted raids on the homes and offices of individuals suspected of violating the Espionage Act or the Sedition Act, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

As was the case with both the first and second breach, the perils of war were used as the justification for tossing aside the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Breach: Another major war triggered the fourth breach of the Bill of Rights. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took a number of actions that violated the Bill of Rights.

The most notorious of these was the 1942 Executive Order 9066, which authorized the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast — even if they were natural-born citizens! This action was justified as a response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection of due process and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

During the war, the Roosevelt administration also censored the press, including news stories and letters, and brought sedition trials against individuals who spoke out against the war effort or the government. That these actions violated the First Amendment are obvious, but once again, the Bill of Rights was tossed aside in the name of military necessity.

Like Lincoln and Wilson, Roosevelt was lionized for his wartime leadership and the fact that his administration helped erode the protections of the Bill of Rights is largely either forgiven or forgotten.

The Apparent Repair and Actual Erosion of the Sixth Wall: The Bill of Rights seemed to grow strong during the Warren Court (1953 - 1969), when Justices Brennan, Black, Douglas, and Frankfurter carved out many new protections for civil liberties. The most famous of these are:

• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which established the right to counsel for all defendants facing serious criminal charges;

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which required police to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during interrogation.

• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which protected students' right to free speech in schools.

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which provided greater protection for freedom of the press by requiring proof of actual malice for public officials to win a defamation suit against the media.

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which established a right to privacy and overturned a ban on the use of contraceptives.

Conservatives, though they often decry government power, have always had an uneasy relationship with the jurisprudence of the Warren Court. We tend to criticize the Warren Court for politicizing the judicial system for left-wing purposes, and for “making up” rights that didn’t really exist. That the Warren Court leaned left — far left — is obvious; that it was wrong about what the Bill of Rights out to preserve is less so.

After all, the Bill of Rights specifically includes the Ninth Amendment, which states “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” James Madison, who authored the Ninth Amendment, specifically included to prevent future generations from arguing that only the explicit rights listed were protected. Why include the Amendment if the only rights that existed were those protected by the prior eight?

Liberals, however, tend to feel uneasy about the Ninth Amendment, because the intent of its authors was that the other rights retained by the people were to be found by reviewing the history and customs of the Anglo-American nation, whose yeoman had fought and gained hard-won liberties. But defending ancient rights does not make for progress, so the left has looked to “due process” and “equal protection” to meet its needs.

In the 1965 Griswold case, the Warren Court did reference the Ninth Amendment in support of the right to privacy, but it relied more heavily on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for recognizing the right. Similarly, in the 1972 case of Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court referred to the Ninth Amendment in support of the right to use contraception, but it again relied more heavily on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overall, the Ninth Amendment has been used infrequently by the Supreme Court as a basis for recognizing unenumerated rights, and the Court has been more likely to rely on the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for recognizing such rights, finding certain “penumbras” and “fundamental liberties” hidden between the lines.

But rights granted by judges can be taken away by judges as easily as they are given. By making unenumerated rights “up for grabs” rather than founded in the history and customs of the nation, the Warren Court actually weakened the Sixth Wall. Because once it becomes a precedent that an unenumerated right can be overturned, it’s not long until enumerated rights are overturned, too.

The Fifth Breach: The fifth breach in the Sixth Wall came during the Reagan Administration, when the War on Drugs was launched. While Reagan was in general a staunch defender of American liberty, the government action taken on the War on Drugs would have been seen as violations of the Bill of Rights by those who authored it.

When the War on Drugs was declared, America’s drug enforcement agencies began to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles, homes, and other places without probable cause or a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also began to employ no-knock raids, which allowed law enforcement to enter homes without knocking or announcing their presence. These, too, violated the Fourth Amendment.

The authorities also began the use of civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize property and assets of individuals suspected of drug trafficking, without a criminal conviction. This practice violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process and takings clauses.

When Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, he put in place mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. This law has led to disproportionately harsh punishment for non-violent drug offenses, and many believe (me included) that it violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The sheer volume of criminal cases created by the War on Drugs also contributed to an erosion of the Sixth Amendment’s right to a speedy trial by jury. Few people arrested in the US ever see a jury trial, and far fewer would call the process “speedy.”

The War of Drugs also had a chilling affect on the freedom of speech, particularly political speech, that long inhibited the ability of individuals to advocate for drug policy reform.

As always, those who favor these actions justify them as necessitated by the drug crisis. There is, after all, a reason its “the war” on drugs; government likes to have the pretext of war to justify its overreach.

The Sixth Breach: George W. Bush’s USA PATRIOT Act, passed as part of the government’s post-9/11 War on Terror, created the sixth breach in the Sixth Wall.

The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the government's surveillance powers and reduced restrictions on law enforcement. It allowed for the detention of terrorism suspects deemed “enemy combatants” without trial, even if they were American citizens. Finally, and most notoriously, it permitted the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, on detainees. Civil liberties advocates then and now hold that these measures violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

But the breach didn’t stop there. In airports around America, a warrantless search of every passenger was made mandatory in order to fly. Americans simply accept that their bodies and belongings can and should be scanned, probed, and handled by police officers every time they want to fly to grandma’s house. It is hard to imagine the Framers, and even less so the Anti-Federalists, accepting such treatment.

Just as was the case in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the War on Drugs, all of these violations have been justified as “necessary” solutions to a dangerous emergency. And perhaps they are. But dangerous emergencies seem to come with ever-increasing frequency recently, and each time when they end, the prior freedoms are never fully restored. Nowhere is this more evident than in…

The Seventh Breach: The seventh, and most recent, breach in the Sixth Wall came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Presidents Trump and Biden put and kept the U.S. on an authorized several actions that were criticized by his opponents as being in violation of the rights of US citizens protected by the Bill of Rights.

The measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic were so disproportionate and draconian that they are no longer even being defended by those who undertook them; instead they are being thought-policed out of existence, with authorities and media now denying that lockdowns ever occurred. Doubtless the progressive history books will one day only mention nuanced and careful policies that saved lives.

But those of who lived through 2020-2022 know the truth. Bans on church-gathering were in obvious violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion. Bans on public assemblies were gross violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly. Mandatory masks, mandatory vaccinations, mandatory vaccine passports — none of it would be tolerable to any people that took its own Bill of Rights seriously.

Of course, at the time, the authorities and their lockstep media argued that these measures were “necessary to protect public health” during the pandemic and that they were “reasonable” and “proportional” to the government's “compelling” interest in protecting public health. And, again, maybe they were. But it’s hard to feel my rights are being protected when I’m forced to wear a facemask while being asked to present proof of vaccination at the airport.

The Last Gatehouse on the Sixth Wall: The Sixth Wall has been breached seven times. The breaches have been greatest at the gatehouses of the First and Fourth Amendments, with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom from unreasonable search and seize routinely trampled by our government anytime they can get away with it.

And yet, one gatehouse of the Sixth Wall remains formidable. Its defenses have never been stronger in fact; it has been buttressed and circumvallated, rendered a bastion of liberty. I refer, of course, the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms.

For many years the Second Amendment was treated with the same respect as the Privileges & Immunities clause, which is to say, none at all. Indeed, when I was in law school, the most frequently-cited academic paper on the Second Amendment was called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.” Under the stewardship of a right-leaning Supreme Court, however, the Second Amendment has blossomed into one of the most powerful protections in the Constitution.

The road to the recovery of the Second Amendment began with District of Columbia v. Heller. In this 2008 case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, striking down a Washington, D.C. law that banned handgun ownership. This represented the first time that the Court had found an individual right to gun ownership in the 2A. Thoroughly grounded in the language and history of the Second Amendment, Heller was a shot heard round the world.

Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): The Supreme Court applied the individual right to bear arms recognized in Heller to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This represented the first time that the Court had incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, and meant that the 2A was henceforth to be understood as one of those “fundamental” rights against which not even the states could legislate.

Most recently, in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all instruments that are traditionally among the people's right to keep and bear, including stun guns.

These cases and others have greatly strengthened the Second Amendment. The protection of individual firearm ownership means that the Seventh Wall, the militia of the people, is still standing. But that is the topic for next week’s essay. For now, let us contemplate the breaches in the Sixth Wall on the Tree of Woe.

1. Since the right to travel and access seaports was defined as one of the most important privileges and immunities, I sometimes wonder whether the Slaughterhouse Cases could be used for a case against government regulation of airports for terrorism- and COVID-related reasons. Probably not, but it would be amusing to see someone try.