Wisconsin Supreme Count Strikes Down Some of Evers' COVID orders

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

The other point of view, which also garners a lot of support, suggests that there are no particular time constraints for an "emergency" (an emergency can last for 30 days or 300 days), particularly if the issue for which an emergency is declared is fluid, changing, and unpredictable.

This is the crux of it. Whether an emergency is an event like a virus, or a time constraint that prevents the normal democratic process from playing out.

I think everyone can agree when there's a time constraint that prevents the legislature from weighing in before a preventable catastrophe occurs, the governor should be able to act unilaterally in ways that are ordinarily outside a governor's powers.

If an emergency is an event, that means there are some things for which we as a people don't want a democratic government ("when event type 'x' happens, we want the governor to unilaterally decide what to do, with no input from the legislature, even though the legislature can act in a timely fashion"). In this case a virus, but it could also be a war, or anything else the executive in his/her sole discretion determines is an emergency (climate, poverty, civil servant salaries, ...). I haven't seen any polls on how people feel about this concept, but I most definitely don't want it. Even though I often disagree with what the legislative branch of governments come up with, I still firmly believe democracy is the best way to go, and executives should implement what the legislature passes, not act unilaterally.

[kettlepot]

Jdhpa has it right.

The premier lawmaking authority in every government in the United States is the legislative authority, not the executive authority.

Governors can act without legislative authority in emergencies only until the legislature can meet and go through its regular legislative process. If the legislature decides to rescind or simply fails to validate a mask mandate, THAT is the final word. The decision of the people through their elected representatives has been made. The masks are been deemed unwarranted by the law and the legislature, rather than by the edict of one man who lacks lawmaking authority.

Sneaking around the system using gimmicks isn't legitimate, and if we make it legitimate we end up with Ceasarism. During the COVID epidemic we saw a lot of incipient Ceasarism among many of our governors.

[ManApplet]

Except when Walker was king ....

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by ManApplet

Except when Walker was king ....

Not true,
The legislature enacted the laws during that time. Laws which the majority of Wisconsin people supported as they no longer wanted corrupt public employee unions running Madison.

Nothing Kingly nor authoritarian about Scott Walker.

[ManApplet]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Not true,
The legislature enacted the laws during that time. Laws which the majority of Wisconsin people supported as they no longer wanted corrupt public employee unions running Madison.

Nothing Kingly nor authoritarian about Scott Walker.

Lemmie guess .. yer not from around here?

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by ManApplet

Lemmie guess .. yer not from around here?

Lived in WI for 50 yrs. Know the place well including how corrupt Madison can be.

[ManApplet]

So how do you feel about the current bumble by the GOP losing WI 50 Million dollars a month?

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by ManApplet

So how do you feel about the current bumble by the GOP losing WI 50 Million dollars a month?

Not sure what that question has to do with governors acting as tyrants or not - but I will answer anyway - Courageous.

Question for you - Why are you apparently OK with federal gov't overreach into states via extortion?

[sub]

Apparently, making sure anyone and everyone wears a mask is more important than feeding the poor.
Extortion indeed
Seriously, what are the feds trying to prove?