By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine
First it was the Wisconsin Supreme Court that found by a 4-3 vote that the Wisconsin Governor and administration had exceeded their authority when they extended the stay-at-home orders for their residents during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, and now another Judge has rendered the Oregon Judge has “declared that all executive orders Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has issued related to the coronavirus pandemic are ‘null and void’.”
Those are just the tip of the lawsuit iceberg.
WE THE PEOPLE
The Wisconsin Supreme Court 4-to-3 ruling striking down the “unlawful and invalid” stay-at-home order made it very clear that there is a definite limit to what elected state leaders can and cannot order their citizens to do and in the case of these unconstitutional lockdown orders, what they cannot do.
When we first reported the Wisconsin ruling we indicated that it was our opinion that other state judges should be mimicking the WI Supreme Court which referred to these draconian measures as the very definition of “tyranny.”
Apparently that ruling has caused a ripple effect across the country.
In Oregon, a Judge has rendered multiple executive orders by the Governor Kate Brown to be “null and void,” after multiple churches sued the Governor.
Baker County Circuit Court Judge Matt Shirtcliff on Monday declared that all executive orders Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has issued related to the coronavirus pandemic are “null and void.”
Brown has exceeded her authority by restricting activities, including church services and business operations, for longer than the 28 days the governor is authorized under a state law related to public health emergencies, Shirtcliff said.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the more than 10 executive orders the governor has issued since March 8.
In the seven page ruling, the Judge maintained that “The public interest is furthered by allowing people to fully exercise their right to worship and conduct their business.”
Brown’s representatives have appealed to Oregon’s Supreme court, which could go either way since a few of the current justices were appointed by Brown. The WI Supreme Court stayed the lower judges ruling until the court can hear both sides of the argument.
The seven page ruling can be read at the Baker City Herald.
At around the 9 minute mark of the audio below we hear the Judge clearly outline that the relevant statue of the Oregon constitution “does not grant the Governor power directly over the movement of citizens and gatherings.”
(PLEASE HELP SUPPORT ANP: With Independent Media being censored on almost every internet platform, reader donations are what keeps websites like ANP up and running. Your donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you, Stefan & Susan.)
In Illinois, a Republican state lawmaker sued Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker, seeking a temporary restraining order against the state’s stay-at-home order, which was granted to him individually, but leads the way for others to bring a suit requesting the same relief or an entity representing a group of residents.
The lawmaker, state Rep. Darren Bailey, filed a motion late last week that sought to prevent the governor “from taking any action … which orders Darren Bailey to stay at home, or at his place of residence, as well as limiting his ability to travel within the state…” The motion alleged that Pritzker’s stay-at-home order is “in excess of the authority granted him” under Illinois law.
The state lawmaker, Darren Bailey, offered his reasoning for taking his challenge to court in a statement last week.
Bailey, on the other hand, said in a post on his website that Pritzker’s stay-at-home order oversimplified the coronavirus problem and didn’t take into account the fact it spreads more slowly in places where the population isn’t as dense.
“The message is clear, we are not Chicago and we already distance ourselves just by our rural life styles. Why should we be punished with the loss of jobs and closing our businesses when the coronavirus emergency isn’t the same for us?” Bailey asked in a statement last week. “This one-size-fits-all mentality needs to be reviewed and take into account our diversity from urban to rural areas of the state.”
Interestingly, the numbers do back up Bailey’s argument.
On Monday the Wall Street Journal reported on the red state versus blue state numbers, stating “Two-thirds of confirmed coronavirus cases are in states with Democratic governors. When states are measured by the sheer number of coronavirus cases, six of the top seven have Democratic governors. Together, those six blue states have about half of the nation’s cases, though only about a third of its population.
The piece goes on to reveal that “Coronavirus deaths tell a similar story. Eight of the nine states with the most deaths due to the virus are states with Democratic governors. When measured by deaths per capita, eight of the top nine states also have Democratic governors.”
No the virus doesn’t “target” liberals and Democrats, but the manner to which the preventative measures are implemented, along with the density of the population in those areas, naturally makes the virus spread faster in some geographical locations than others.
More from Fox News on the flurry of lawsuits against Democrat Governors:
Meanwhile, California alone is facing at least a dozen lawsuits that include claims that the state has unjustly closed down gun shops and religious services. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is up against a lawsuit from Republicans in her state’s House and Senate over her extension of an already-strict emergency order that has regulated residents’ movement and closed businesses. And Kentucky protesters sued officials including Gov. Andy Beshear, also a Democrat, for allegedly violating the First Amendment by banning mass protests.
A group of Ohio gyms sued Republican Gov. Mike DeWine over his reopening order excluding them from those businesses allowed to operate, but it was subsequently announced that they will be allowed to reopen after all.
|(Lockdown protest in California)|
While no one wants a pandemic, there are a couple silver linings to what we have seen from state elected leaders, in their overreach.
• We now know which elected leaders will immediately gravitate to tyranny if given the opportunity. Citizens would do well to remember come election day.
• We also note that that the majority of lawsuits filed against these tyrannical Governors, are seeing the legal system side with “we the people,” which is making it clear that Governors do have limits to their power over “we the people.”
• We see that despite the trite assertion by many that “both parties are the same,” there are some very real differences in the moral makeup between Democrats and Republicans, as it is Republicans lawmakers initiating these lawsuits and demanding the rights of the citizens be honored.
• On another note, yet another silver lining here is that up to “40 percent of families are more likely to choose to homeschool their children or engage in virtual learning once the coronavirus pandemic subsides.”
Considering what we have seen in public schools throughout the past couple of decades where activism has replaced education, and children are being indoctrinated into communism and socialism, and kindergartners are being taught about sex, it can only be a good things to see parents learning what is happening to their children in school and taking control back.
I only wish that number were higher.
Precedent needs to be set by the courts showing that the guaranteed constitutional rights of Americans cannot be violated by our elected leaders.
It is times like these where we see the importance of nominating and confirming judges across America, from the lower courts to the appellant courts to the Supreme Court.
Traditionally Democrats nominate liberal judges which act as activists while Republicans nominate conservative judges which try to adhere to the constitution, often referred to as “originalists.”