Extreme abuse of power
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
So anyway, you anarchists were right and I was wrong - the policeman is NOT our friend and in fact is just itching to violate our civil rights, all they need is the green light from some fascist Governor or Mayor.
Mea culpa.
Mea culpa.
Nay, you were not wrong, just too broad. Most police are our friends but there are a few who feel they are superior to the commoners. If they don't unscrew this thing soon there will be many more protests and in time they will become less peaceful.
InigoMontoya
Active Member
The police aren't supposed to be our friends, they exist to uphold laws. Whether we like it or not, executive orders have the force of law until revoked, rescinded, or overturned by judicial review if they are proven to violate the constitution.
LEGAL executive orders. These little hitlers are issuing executive orders on top of orders that will never pass the Constitutional litmus test when they get to the courts. They know it but continue to issue them counting on them being in force long enough for them to accomplish their agenda. When the court says no, they will say OK, sorry, I'll rescind the order. And in many cases the liberal courts will intentionally delay, delay, delay to help their lefty friends.
And when we say cops are our friends it doesn't mean we attend parties with them and exchange Christmas cards, it means they are there for the good of the people and if you are following the law they don't bother you (generally) and often will help if they see a need. Calling them friends is akin to referring to an ally in a war as a friend.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
WHAF!? Really? Maybe, if you are in the service of the government, (ie. Maryland National Guard, or an employee of the State), but not the free citizens thereof. Which legislature passed such a law? Name and cite the law that says our Governor has been given carte blanche to create an enforceable law via an executive order?
Sorry, no. State officials do not get to violate our rights under the Constitution until some judge tells them to knock it off. WE the PEOPLE. WE own this place, not them.
InigoMontoya
Active Member
That sounds good in theory, but the way it's currently written that's not true.
"The authority for governors to issue executive orders is found in state constitutions and statutes as well as case law, or is implied by the powers assigned to state chief executives. Governors use executive orders—certain of which are subject to legislative review in some states—for a variety of purposes, among them to:
- trigger emergency powers during natural disasters, energy crises, and other situations requiring immediate attention"
Sorry, still no. Google "equal protection clause" .
InigoMontoya
Active Member
"Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances."
" Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights."
So unless the State government is saying that one group of people must social distance but others don't have to (as a loose example), I don't see how this applies.
The full text is available on the Cornell Law School website.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Arguing about what tirhts a Governor has doesn't get us anywhere.
They have taken that right and unless we revolt they will make it stick.
People are starting to complain now in some states and pretty soon the voices will tell the Governors to open up or they wont be Governors after the next election, then it will be opened. They all like receiving the perks the job entails.
They have taken that right and unless we revolt they will make it stick.
People are starting to complain now in some states and pretty soon the voices will tell the Governors to open up or they wont be Governors after the next election, then it will be opened. They all like receiving the perks the job entails.
Scat
Well-Known Member
for the SOMD forums purpose, lets focus on Md., perhaps we could start with Articles 1, 6, 9 and 14
https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
Scat
Well-Known Member
Next, try reading articles 24 and 36.
Bean Machine
Member
When state constitutions conflict with federal constitution, then federal wins. 1st amendment trumps all states. This was settled in 1865.
I think you missed part of his statement, the orders are considered LEGAL until they are challenged and courts have ruled or put a stay on enforcement.
We refer to the police, the sheriff, etc as LAW ENFORCEMENT. Not judge or prosecutor, or defense attorney.
They can only do what they are ordered to do. They are derelict in their duties if they do not enforce legal orders, regardless of their personal opinion. They can prioritize, to make best use of their resources, but if the local executive says shut it down, they have to shut it down.
As long as I am on my soap box.....
I think what we are seeing is a grab, illegal grab, for political power in this country.
If you look at the state with the most draconian rules, that are looking to drag it on the longest, they are led by democrats.
The longer it goes on, the more likely they will get mail in ballots. 100% chance of voter fraud with mail in ballots.
Sorry, no again. This is plain English:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's one of the more clear sentences in the whole Constitution. States can't make laws that infringe on the rights of citizens under the US Constitution.
Toxick
Splat
I think you're leaving out the part where it makes exceptions where public health is involved.
Or where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.