On behalf of the Marblehead Republican Town Committee, we welcome open discussion, but believe the Current’s March 25 editorial, “In abnormal times, an affirmation of basic rights” and Article 40 itself are built less on genuine threats to constitutional rights and more on political opposition to the current administration.
Our founding principles—individual liberty, limited government and the rule of law—are not under siege. Framing them as endangered creates a narrative of crisis that is not supported by reality. In practice, Article 40 appears to be a response to political disagreement, not an actual erosion of rights.
Core freedoms like speech, assembly and an independent judiciary remain firmly intact. Suggesting otherwise risks turning universally accepted principles into partisan tools. At the same time, concerns about government overreach are being applied selectively, while issues such as bureaucratic expansion, uneven enforcement of laws and border security are overlooked.
Marblehead’s history calls for principled, lawful self-governance, not symbolic resolutions driven by political sentiment. Claims that our institutions are failing or under extraordinary threat are highly contested; our system continues to function as designed, with active courts, protected speech and lawful elections.
We support peaceful protest and civic engagement. However, the “No Kings” and anti-ICE protests referenced in the editorial highlight a deeper concern: When demonstrations are framed in opposition to law enforcement or to the enforcement of duly enacted laws, they move beyond simple civic expression especially when they invoke violence against federal officers. There is a clear and important distinction between exercising constitutional rights and promoting positions that undermine respect for the rule of law.
Ultimately, Article 40 reads as a political statement rooted in opposition to the current administration, rather than a necessary reaffirmation of rights. If the goal is unity, it should rise above partisan framing and reflect a balanced view of both rights and responsibilities.
This is not a moment of constitutional crisis, it is a moment of political disagreement. We encourage voters to recognize that distinction and consider Article 40 accordingly.
Emily DeJoy
Riverside Drive
