Whitmer Misses The Mark

[audiophile]

It seems like the legislature really has zero leverage here and they simply don't realize it. When they have to resort to suing despite the failed attempt in Oakland County it telling how desperate they are.

I suspect that all this is nothing more than showmanship. Shirkley needs to keep appearences for nutters like you.

Either you are completely intellectually bankrupt or an idiot, but there is a GIANT difference between suing the dictator over orders issued under an approved emergency order vs. the dictator unilaterally extending the state of emergency and not working with the legislature.

Yes, quite different. I'm not sure why she rejected their offer from the senate other than ego.

[MasterB]

I wish Whitmer and the legislature would make a deal but it just her way or the highway should be a 2-way street give and take.

[MWmetalhead]

It's clear that the law enacted in 1976 only gives the Governor a 28-day time limit to unilaterally exercise emergency powers unless an extension of such exercise of power is approved by the legislature:

https://www.mackinac.org/emergency-powe ... chigan-law

Whitmer and the AG shouldn't be allowed to disregard 1976's updates to the 1945 law.

Would be nice if the Michigan Supreme Court would get off its ass and do its job.

[Deleted User 12047]

The biggest conflict here is the difference between Ohio and Michigan. While Ohio law gives the gov and medical director much broader authority to take action, the legislature is not going to throw him under the bus.

Did Whitmer overstep her authority? Perhaps. Would the legislature support her on a declaration that "Puppies are cute!"? Probably not.

[Matt]

The biggest conflict here is the difference between Ohio and Michigan. While Ohio law gives the gov and medical director much broader authority to take action, the legislature is not going to throw him under the bus.

Did Whitmer overstep her authority? Perhaps. Would the legislature support her on a declaration that "Puppies are cute!"? Probably not.

Again, it's a two way street. Whitmer has not proven herself to be a competent leader. If you remember the budget battle, she walked away from the negotiating table until the last minute. Once the budget was passed, she line-item vetoed Republican priorities thinking that would draw them back to the table. It didn't work.

Her vindictive and antagonistic behavior during the current crisis reinforces that she's not a leader that can be trusted. If her actions with Karen Whitsett don't bother you at least a little bit, then you would have to be a pretty strict partisan.

[audiophile]

Agreed Matt,

I devoted very few of my posts to Whitmer prior to her trying allow abortions for minors and then hide it from parents - that when I realized she had a few screws loose. Next it was the budget battle where she line-item vetoed a billion dollars from the budget not because of waste but just to burn people (she didn't get 45-cent gas tax increase) and finally her recent EO's, including ones without legislative approval.

And MW, the Mackinaw article was where I drew some of my thoughts over the last month. She has no leg to stand on without legislative approval. She can not cancel and re-issue identical EO's to circumvent the 28-day limitation. That's an abuse of process. (See Executive Order 2020-67 "Executive Order 2020-33 is rescinded and replaced. All previous orders that rested on Executive Order 2020-33 now rest on this order.")

She needs to go. She uses "saving lives" as an excuse to violate laws, all while trying to pass a bill to kill viable unborn children without parents knowledge. She is clearly is a power hungry nut case.

I WILL GLADLY SIGN A PETITION FOR HER REMOVAL.

[bmw]

It's clear that the law enacted in 1976 only gives the Governor a 28-day time limit to unilaterally exercise emergency powers unless an extension of such exercise of power is approved by the legislature:

https://www.mackinac.org/emergency-powe ... chigan-law

Whitmer and the AG shouldn't be allowed to disregard 1976's updates to the 1945 law.

Would be nice if the Michigan Supreme Court would get off its ass and do its job.

MW, as much as it pains me to say this, and as much as I wish it wasn't true, my interpretation of the 2 statutes in question says you are wrong. First a few excerpts from the 1945 law:

==============

During times of...public emergency within the state...the governor may proclaim a state of emergency and designate the area involved. After making the proclamation or declaration, the governor may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and regulations as he or she considers necessary to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control. Those orders, rules, and regulations may include, but are not limited to, providing for the control of traffic...designation of specific zones within the area in which occupancy and use of buildings and ingress and egress of persons and vehicles may be prohibited or regulated; control of places of amusement and assembly and of persons on public streets and thoroughfares; establishment of a curfew; control of the sale, transportation, and use of alcoholic beverages and liquors; and control of the storage, use, and transportation of explosives or inflammable materials or liquids deemed to be dangerous to public safety.

==============

First, a few things to note about what is contained within the 1945 law as quoted above: The phrase "may include, but are not limited to..." implies very broad powers. She can basically issue any reasonable order that she deems necessary to protect life and to bring the emergency situation under control. Next:

The provisions of this act shall be broadly construed to effectuate this purpose.

As such, the law is to be broadly construed as opposed to narrowly construed. Ultimately, this law gives the governor VERY BROAD powers.

NOW - you reference the 1976 law. Just as Rate This was wrong about how it is merely an "update" to the 1945 law, you are as well. Per the 1976 law:

30.417 Construction of act.
Sec. 17. This act shall not be construed to do any of the following:
...
(d) Limit, modify, or abridge the authority of the governor to proclaim a state of emergency pursuant to
Act No. 302 of the Public Acts of 1945

As such, the 1976 law is explicitly constructed to NOT modify or limit any of the power contained in the 1945 law, and the 1945 law is quite broad.

The 2 problems that I have with how she's done what's she done are as follows:
1 - audophile pointed this out - All of the executive orders that rested on the state of emergency originally issued pursuant to the 1976 law, Whitmer simply, within her new state of emergency declaration, declared that all of those pre-existing orders now rest on the 1945 law. To me that seems procedurally deficient. I don't think you can write an EO under one authority and then weeks later use another EO to change the authority on which a bunch of children EO's were issued.

2 - Look at the language contained in the construction clause of the 1945 law:

It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent to invest the governor with sufficiently broad power of action in the exercise of the police power of the state to provide adequate control over persons and conditions during such periods of impending or actual public crisis or disaster

See that? LEGISLATIVE INTENT. That is no longer the legislative intent, and even though today the legislature has a sufficient majority to take their power back, Whitmer is using her veto power to block it. That, to me, is a rogue governor. To use a local example to illustrate how absurd this is, think of a school board. School boards often delegate power to committees. Now imagine if a committee delegated such powers had the veto power to block the main school board from taking its power back. That is exactly what is going on here. As far as I am concerned, a governor should NOT have the veto power to block another branch of government from merely taking back the power that it delegated to the governor under its own volition in the first place.

[Rate This]

It's clear that the law enacted in 1976 only gives the Governor a 28-day time limit to unilaterally exercise emergency powers unless an extension of such exercise of power is approved by the legislature:

https://www.mackinac.org/emergency-powe ... chigan-law

Whitmer and the AG shouldn't be allowed to disregard 1976's updates to the 1945 law.

Would be nice if the Michigan Supreme Court would get off its ass and do its job.

MW, as much as it pains me to say this, and as much as I wish it wasn't true, my interpretation of the 2 statutes in question says you are wrong. First a few excerpts from the 1945 law:

==============

During times of...public emergency within the state...the governor may proclaim a state of emergency and designate the area involved. After making the proclamation or declaration, the governor may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and regulations as he or she considers necessary to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control. Those orders, rules, and regulations may include, but are not limited to, providing for the control of traffic...designation of specific zones within the area in which occupancy and use of buildings and ingress and egress of persons and vehicles may be prohibited or regulated; control of places of amusement and assembly and of persons on public streets and thoroughfares; establishment of a curfew; control of the sale, transportation, and use of alcoholic beverages and liquors; and control of the storage, use, and transportation of explosives or inflammable materials or liquids deemed to be dangerous to public safety.

==============

First, a few things to note about what is contained within the 1945 law as quoted above: The phrase "may include, but are not limited to..." implies very broad powers. She can basically issue any reasonable order that she deems necessary to protect life and to bring the emergency situation under control. Next:

The provisions of this act shall be broadly construed to effectuate this purpose.

As such, the law is to be broadly construed as opposed to narrowly construed. Ultimately, this law gives the governor VERY BROAD powers.

NOW - you reference the 1976 law. Just as Rate This was wrong about how it is merely an "update" to the 1945 law, you are as well. Per the 1976 law:

30.417 Construction of act.
Sec. 17. This act shall not be construed to do any of the following:
...
(d) Limit, modify, or abridge the authority of the governor to proclaim a state of emergency pursuant to
Act No. 302 of the Public Acts of 1945

As such, the 1976 law is explicitly constructed to NOT modify or limit any of the power contained in the 1945 law, and the 1945 law is quite broad.

The 2 problems that I have with how she's done what's she done are as follows:
1 - audophile pointed this out - All of the executive orders that rested on the state of emergency originally issued pursuant to the 1976 law, Whitmer simply, within her new state of emergency declaration, declared that all of those pre-existing orders now rest on the 1945 law. To me that seems procedurally deficient. I don't think you can write an EO under one authority and then weeks later use another EO to change the authority on which a bunch of children EO's were issued.

2 - Look at the language contained in the construction clause of the 1945 law:

It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent to invest the governor with sufficiently broad power of action in the exercise of the police power of the state to provide adequate control over persons and conditions during such periods of impending or actual public crisis or disaster

See that? LEGISLATIVE INTENT. That is no longer the legislative intent, and even though today the legislature has a sufficient majority to take their power back, Whitmer is using her veto power to block it. That, to me, is a rogue governor. To use a local example to illustrate how absurd this is, think of a school board. School boards often delegate power to committees. Now imagine if a committee delegated such powers had the veto power to block the main school board from taking its power back. That is exactly what is going on here. As far as I am concerned, a governor should NOT have the veto power to block another branch of government from merely taking back the power that it delegated to the governor under its own volition in the first place.

Once you give the governor that power what governor is going to voluntarily give the power back?!? Not happening. Keep dreaming.

[bmw]

Oh, I agree that this problem was ultimately the legislature's fault. I don't understand why in 1976 when they passed the 28-day restriction why they in the same law said that the old law is in no way modified. They SHOULD have rescinded the 1945 law altogether. However, not having been alive in the 1970s, all I can do is speculate that perhaps the governor at the time wouldn't have signed onto that? At any rate, the 28-day rule is virtually useless given the broad powers contained in the 1945 law

Also, what I'm saying is that I don't like the idea that it only requires a simple majority to delegate power but that it requires a 2/3 majority to take that power back - power that rightfully belongs to the legislature in the first place.

[audiophile]

It's possible that the 1945 law could be found unconstitutional.

[Rate This]

Oh, I agree that this problem was ultimately the legislature's fault. I don't understand why in 1976 when they passed the 28-day restriction why they in the same law said that the old law is in no way modified. They SHOULD have rescinded the 1945 law altogether. However, not having been alive in the 1970s, all I can do is speculate that perhaps the governor at the time wouldn't have signed onto that? At any rate, the 28-day rule is virtually useless given the broad powers contained in the 1945 law

Also, what I'm saying is that I don't like the idea that it only requires a simple majority to delegate power but that it requires a 2/3 majority to take that power back - power that rightfully belongs to the legislature in the first place.

I don’t understand what the point of competing laws is if they don’t interact or supersede or modify or ANYTHING...

[Matt]

Benson is going to be joining Karen today. My prediction is there will be an appeal for mail in voting for November...

[audiophile]

I have no issue going to the polls. I got my P100 mask.

[Matt]

Benson is going to be joining Karen today. My prediction is there will be an appeal for mail in voting for November...

What do I win?

[audiophile]

I found it funny that Whitmer is quoting Bush now about working together! That's gaslighting!

Why doesn't she take her own advice, and work with the legislature?

They offered her two week extension, then in two weeks they would negotiate going forward.