It's interesting for sure.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 2:05 pmSweden never closed down schools or restaurants and still had fewer deaths per capita than Michigan. Hmmmbmw wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 amHerd immunity. I'm all for whatever it takes to get us there the fastest way possible without overrunning the hospitals as that is the ONLY viable solution to this. Anybody who thinks that:
A) a vaccine is the magical solution, and/or
B) that we can hold out that long
...will be sadly disappointed to find at the end of the road that not only is a vaccine not the magical cure, but that the country is a shell of its former self and the problems it faces at that time make the Coronavirus look like a mild sniffle in comparison.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through June 3 at 5:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
- audiophile
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
People who can’t handle the truth embrace instead Trump’s dystopian American Fantasy.
People who can face the truth embrace Dr. Fauci’s safer way back to The American Dream.
One attracts the impatient, ignorant, and short-sighted.
The other attracts the patient, wise, and long-view-sighted.
People who can face the truth embrace Dr. Fauci’s safer way back to The American Dream.
One attracts the impatient, ignorant, and short-sighted.
The other attracts the patient, wise, and long-view-sighted.
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
During the campaign Trump was asked in an interview if he’d ever endured a personal sacrifice.
His answer revealed that he did not even know what that meant.
It was a striking moment as to his character. And a fearful moment for what it revealed about a possible future world leader.
His answer revealed that he did not even know what that meant.
It was a striking moment as to his character. And a fearful moment for what it revealed about a possible future world leader.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
Next up, Oregon:
http://katu.com/news/local/judge-tosses ... rnor-brownA judge in rural Oregon on Monday tossed out statewide coronavirus restrictions imposed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, saying she didn’t seek the Legislature's approval to extend the stay-at-home orders beyond a 28-day limit.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
Brown has vowed to appeal.Howard Jones wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 8:53 pmNext up, Oregon:
http://katu.com/news/local/judge-tosses ... rnor-brownA judge in rural Oregon on Monday tossed out statewide coronavirus restrictions imposed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, saying she didn’t seek the Legislature's approval to extend the stay-at-home orders beyond a 28-day limit.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
One would surmise that she’ll appeal at least one more time...
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
It would be most intriguing to hear from the SCOTUS. Emergency powers by the government are clearly necessary -- as is the need to have a clear definition of things like timeframes.
My opinion is that, in Michigan, Whitmer was clearly and correctly acting within her powers for the first 28 days, and then again when the legislature granted her the 2-week extension of those powers. Now though? Not so much.
In my mind, an emergency exists when decisions must be made in a matter of hours to address immanent threats to human safety and property. Once that immediate threat is over ... say with the reasonable time frame of 28 days, if the conditions that led to the emergency are still ongoing, the situation evolves into something that can be addressed much more reasonably by a committee (ie the legislature) versus "just" the "emergency manager".
The fight shouldn't be over the rules themselves, some of which are clearly necessary, but instead of who has the power to issue defacto legislation. To me anyway, there simply must be limits on the executive branch's ability to write laws that extend beyond something that addresses an immediate emergency - no matter which party controls which branch of the government. Our entire system of government depends on each branch doing what it does best with the proper checks and balances in place between those branches.
The argument over the very foundation of our system of government is extremely important to me. I don't want any governor or US president getting the kind of power over the people that we have been witnessing since March. I want as many voices engaged as possible in making sound decisions that protect the people while balancing the very freedoms so many have fought and died for since our forefathers saw a way to create a system of government that has been the best in the world for almost 250 years.
There is a reason the states have legislative bodies. No emergency should ever exempt them from being involved in legislating solutions.
My opinion is that, in Michigan, Whitmer was clearly and correctly acting within her powers for the first 28 days, and then again when the legislature granted her the 2-week extension of those powers. Now though? Not so much.
In my mind, an emergency exists when decisions must be made in a matter of hours to address immanent threats to human safety and property. Once that immediate threat is over ... say with the reasonable time frame of 28 days, if the conditions that led to the emergency are still ongoing, the situation evolves into something that can be addressed much more reasonably by a committee (ie the legislature) versus "just" the "emergency manager".
The fight shouldn't be over the rules themselves, some of which are clearly necessary, but instead of who has the power to issue defacto legislation. To me anyway, there simply must be limits on the executive branch's ability to write laws that extend beyond something that addresses an immediate emergency - no matter which party controls which branch of the government. Our entire system of government depends on each branch doing what it does best with the proper checks and balances in place between those branches.
The argument over the very foundation of our system of government is extremely important to me. I don't want any governor or US president getting the kind of power over the people that we have been witnessing since March. I want as many voices engaged as possible in making sound decisions that protect the people while balancing the very freedoms so many have fought and died for since our forefathers saw a way to create a system of government that has been the best in the world for almost 250 years.
There is a reason the states have legislative bodies. No emergency should ever exempt them from being involved in legislating solutions.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
When nobody actually wants to work together this is what we get (the legislature said they did but that was a cop out when the tables were turned against them)...Howard Jones wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 1:54 pmIt would be most intriguing to hear from the SCOTUS. Emergency powers by the government are clearly necessary -- as is the need to have a clear definition of things like timeframes.
My opinion is that, in Michigan, Whitmer was clearly and correctly acting within her powers for the first 28 days, and then again when the legislature granted her the 2-week extension of those powers. Now though? Not so much.
In my mind, an emergency exists when decisions must be made in a matter of hours to address immanent threats to human safety and property. Once that immediate threat is over ... say with the reasonable time frame of 28 days, if the conditions that led to the emergency are still ongoing, the situation evolves into something that can be addressed much more reasonably by a committee (ie the legislature) versus "just" the "emergency manager".
The fight shouldn't be over the rules themselves, some of which are clearly necessary, but instead of who has the power to issue defacto legislation. To me anyway, there simply must be limits on the executive branch's ability to write laws that extend beyond something that addresses an immediate emergency - no matter which party controls which branch of the government. Our entire system of government depends on each branch doing what it does best with the proper checks and balances in place between those branches.
The argument over the very foundation of our system of government is extremely important to me. I don't want any governor or US president getting the kind of power over the people that we have been witnessing since March. I want as many voices engaged as possible in making sound decisions that protect the people while balancing the very freedoms so many have fought and died for since our forefathers saw a way to create a system of government that has been the best in the world for almost 250 years.
There is a reason the states have legislative bodies. No emergency should ever exempt them from being involved in legislating solutions.
Look at Wisconsin... the legislature she’s, gets the order struck down by the state Supreme Court and then promptly has no plan to do much of anything instead... the end goal was just to be rid of something a Democratic Governor did... that’s it...
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
Agreed. If a legislative body declines actions to timely mitigate an issue that clearly needs to be addressed, such as a pandemic or natural disaster, the executive should be permitted, with either the guidance of a law or an emergency order by the courts, to take temporary action.Rate This wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:41 pmWhen nobody actually wants to work together this is what we get (the legislature said they did but that was a cop out when the tables were turned against them)...
Look at Wisconsin... the legislature she’s, gets the order struck down by the state Supreme Court and then promptly has no plan to do much of anything instead... the end goal was just to be rid of something a Democratic Governor did... that’s it...
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
Joe Walsh has a hidden track on one of his albums, can’t remember if it was after Life’s Been Good, or In the City, song: Look, there goes a flock of wah wah’s!
Can we now get back to helping each other to survive this crap? Maybe help the old lady next door get groceries or cat food or something? It’ll make you feel good too!
Can we now get back to helping each other to survive this crap? Maybe help the old lady next door get groceries or cat food or something? It’ll make you feel good too!
You're never too old to learn something stupid.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules “stay at home” unconstitutional
Life’s been good, the hidden track is attached to the version of the song I got from Apple Music...HD74 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 11:56 pmJoe Walsh has a hidden track on one of his albums, can’t remember if it was after Life’s Been Good, or In the City, song: Look, there goes a flock of wah wah’s!
Can we now get back to helping each other to survive this crap? Maybe help the old lady next door get groceries or cat food or something? It’ll make you feel good too!