4 ms·

Nonsense. You say that as if the 50 States' legislatures have been wiped out by covid-19 and can't convene (or be convened, as the case may be) and pass laws.

Nonsense. You say that as if the 50 States' legislatures have been wiped out by covid-19 and can't convene (or be convened, as the case may be) and pass laws. In the U.S. executive orders simply don't and can't have the force of law without the support of statutory law, not relative to civilians[0]. If you want a law, it needs to be passed as a statute by the appropriate legislature and must become law via all the usual mechanisms. It's not that hard to pass emergency laws with sunsets in the very near future. So even if a given State's legislature is skeptical of covid-19's severity, they might nonetheless be amenable to a brief grant of emergency powers and see what happens. Governors or the President acting alone to impose emergency statute-like law? That's not well received in the U.S., whether by people or courts, and there are very strong precedents in this regard[0]. That has nothing to do with corruption or taxes, and everything to do with long-established, well-thought-out, constitutional law. Yes, we're talking about constitutional law based on past skepticism of government, but that does not imply current skepticism (though it's true there's plenty of it). Also, the U.S. Constitution's requirement that State governments be (small-r) republican almost certainly extends the constraints on the President's EO power to the States' Governors. (Though, admittedly, the Supreme Court has ruled the Republican Government Guarantee clause non-justiciable, that was during the 19th century in a case that was clearly for Congress to decide, and the Court erred in saying that the clause was simply non-justiciable as opposed to certain cases not being justiciable. In a case about the validity and enforcability of gubernatorial EOs, the Court might well rule that the clause does mean that Governors cannot impose emergency rules without statutory support. Certainly that seems like a reasonable interpretation.) > ... the people will never respect those in charge. ... This was a decision by a court, not a question of whether the people support their governments. This state high court decision tells you practically nothing about how the people of Wisconsin feel about the measures that the Court struck down. [0] E.g., the Truman era steel cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._... https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/the-distribution-of-national-powers/youngstown-sheet-tube-co-v-sawyer-2/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/const...

bosswipe 7y ago
Wisconsin's legislature passed a law that gives the Department of Health the authority to issue orders in the face of a public health emergency. It is because of extreme partisanship that the extremely partisan Wisconsin court has now struck down that law in a blatant act of judicial activism to get the political result they wanted.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  > struck down that law Not true, no laws were struck down. They simply overturned Emergency Order 28. DHS can even reissue the order, they just need to submit it to the appropriate legislative committee for approval. At the heart of the lawsuit was a state law governing communicable diseases that says the Department of Health Services "may close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other places to control outbreaks and epidemics," and gives it the power to "authorize and implement all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases." But the majority found Palm also had to follow another state law that requires regulations to be submitted to a legislative committee that can block them.
  - bosswipe 7y ago
    Ok, they rewrote the law. The law [1] says "The department may promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders" but the court just said that they cannot issue orders, they can only promulgate rules. [1] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/252/02 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/252/02
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      The Court did not rewrite or invalidate 252.02. The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule" which means that "the rulemaking procedures of 227.24 were required to be followed". There's nothing about that statement that precludes an order like Emergency Order 28 from coming into force provided that its promulgation follows those rulemaking procedures. There is no rewrite. 252.02 does not exist in a vacuum -- the Court simply recognizes that other parts of Wisconsin statutory code also apply. We can debate whether the Court was right, but not whether its position is a reasonable one. Clearly, deciding that statutory rulemaking procedures apply is a reasonable position. Clearly, also, deciding that they don't apply might well also be reasonable. | We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.

bosswipe 7y ago

Wisconsin's legislature passed a law that gives the Department of Health the authority to issue orders in the face of a public health emergency. It is because of extreme partisanship that the extremely partisan Wisconsin court has now struck down that law in a blatant act of judicial activism to get the political result they wanted.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
> struck down that law Not true, no laws were struck down. They simply overturned Emergency Order 28. DHS can even reissue the order, they just need to submit it to the appropriate legislative committee for approval. At the heart of the lawsuit was a state law governing communicable diseases that says the Department of Health Services "may close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other places to control outbreaks and epidemics," and gives it the power to "authorize and implement all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases." But the majority found Palm also had to follow another state law that requires regulations to be submitted to a legislative committee that can block them.
- bosswipe 7y ago
  Ok, they rewrote the law. The law [1] says "The department may promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders" but the court just said that they cannot issue orders, they can only promulgate rules. [1] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/252/02 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/252/02
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    The Court did not rewrite or invalidate 252.02. The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule" which means that "the rulemaking procedures of 227.24 were required to be followed". There's nothing about that statement that precludes an order like Emergency Order 28 from coming into force provided that its promulgation follows those rulemaking procedures. There is no rewrite. 252.02 does not exist in a vacuum -- the Court simply recognizes that other parts of Wisconsin statutory code also apply. We can debate whether the Court was right, but not whether its position is a reasonable one. Clearly, deciding that statutory rulemaking procedures apply is a reasonable position. Clearly, also, deciding that they don't apply might well also be reasonable. | We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.