Will Whitmer's Autocratic Reign End After September 9th? - The Ludington Torch2024-03-29T02:18:36Zhttps://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/will-whitmer-s-autocratic-reign-end-after-september-9th?commentId=4689834%3AComment%3A1183512&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI don't know X. I don't see t…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2020-09-06:4689834:Comment:11835122020-09-06T02:41:34.080ZWillyhttps://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/willy
<p>I don't know X. I don't see these laws as being ambiguous. Both clearly state the Governor can declare a state of emergency if she deems it necessary. With the help of other officials, in this case, being medical experts, she can say she is relying on medical advice from professionals.</p>
<p>There are 3 ways that I can see this going. The first option is upholding the Governors authority given to her under the laws in question. This is highly probable and might be the only way to work…</p>
<p>I don't know X. I don't see these laws as being ambiguous. Both clearly state the Governor can declare a state of emergency if she deems it necessary. With the help of other officials, in this case, being medical experts, she can say she is relying on medical advice from professionals.</p>
<p>There are 3 ways that I can see this going. The first option is upholding the Governors authority given to her under the laws in question. This is highly probable and might be the only way to work within the Constitution.</p>
<p>The second option is for the Court to declare the 1945 law unconstitutional but if that were done then that would mean the 1975 law would also be in the same boat.</p>
<p>The third option would be that the judges would throw the suit back in the Legislators lap in order for the Legislature to fix the legal entanglement of having 2 similar laws. This is something the Legislative branch should have done when they passed the 1975 law.They should have just repealed the 1945 law back in 1975. After all it's not up to the judges to make or alter the law, that is the Legislatures job. I think the Republicans did not choose to repeal the law when Whitmer revealed her Fascists roots because being the cowards they are, they did not want to take the heat just in case the virus ended up being a true pandemic so instead they tried to have the courts do their dirty work for them so they could tell the voters how much they are trying to put the reigns on the Governor. I believe option 3 will be the courts choice. Just a guess.</p>
<p></p> If I should be a lawyer, you…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2020-09-05:4689834:Comment:11827442020-09-05T04:49:28.541ZXLFDhttps://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>If I should be a lawyer, you should be my assistant, because you always bring up very good points, like you did here, that challenge my legal theories. We should note that the legislature has filed a civil suit, and not a criminal suit in this case, that means quite a bit actually to the court.</p>
<p><span>In criminal law, the rule of lenity requires the court to resolve any statutory ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant. Were this a criminal prosecution, one would be inclined to…</span></p>
<p>If I should be a lawyer, you should be my assistant, because you always bring up very good points, like you did here, that challenge my legal theories. We should note that the legislature has filed a civil suit, and not a criminal suit in this case, that means quite a bit actually to the court.</p>
<p><span>In criminal law, the rule of lenity requires the court to resolve any statutory ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant. Were this a criminal prosecution, one would be inclined to give the defendant, in this case the governor, the benefit of the ambiguity/doubt and rule in her favor.</span></p>
<p><span>But in civil law, where a statute is ambiguous, well-established precedent says a court will defer to an "agency’s" interpretation of a statute it is tasked with administering, so long as that interpretation is “reasonable<em>.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc</em>., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In civil cases, courts may be more apt to promote the remedial purposes of a statute (or two ambiguous/conflicting statutes) rather than construe it narrowly, as a court would in criminal cases.</span></p>
<p><span>As for your distinction between epidemic and pandemic, both of the two epidemics I mentioned were pandemics, like covid-19, and thus more serious epidemics as you note. An analogy: let's say your harbormaster has a strict rule that he will not let you take your boat out of the harbor when there is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gale force winds</a>. </span></p>
<p><span>If there is actually hurricane force winds do you think that would allow him to let boaters take their vessels out? It's reasonable to assume that these are just stronger gale force winds and require a boating ban, but if you were reading the rule strictly, you could justify letting them boaters test their seamanship when it's went beyond gale force.</span></p> You should be an attorney. Th…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2020-09-04:4689834:Comment:11825792020-09-04T23:39:54.180ZWillyhttps://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/willy
<p>You should be an attorney. That could be your next project because your reasoning is much better than most attorneys.</p>
<p>I think the key word in all of this is "epidemic". I have found that in most cases when laws are in conflict the most restrictive law would apply. Since the 1976 law mentions "epidemic" and not "pandemic" then it would follow that the Governor is acting on a situation that is more widely spread and more serious, thus calling for a more aggressive response. Since…</p>
<p>You should be an attorney. That could be your next project because your reasoning is much better than most attorneys.</p>
<p>I think the key word in all of this is "epidemic". I have found that in most cases when laws are in conflict the most restrictive law would apply. Since the 1976 law mentions "epidemic" and not "pandemic" then it would follow that the Governor is acting on a situation that is more widely spread and more serious, thus calling for a more aggressive response. Since officials have ruled Covid19 a pandemic this has given Whitmer an excuse to use the 1945 law.</p>
<p>"An <em>epidemic</em> is defined as “an outbreak of disease that spreads quickly and affects many individuals at the same time.” A <em>pandemic</em> is a type of <em>epidemic</em> (one with greater range and coverage), an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population. While a <em>pandemic</em> may be characterized as a type of <em>epidemic</em>, you would not say that an <em>epidemic</em> is a type of <em>pandemic</em>."</p> I'm no attorney either, thoug…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2020-09-04:4689834:Comment:11825422020-09-04T22:14:58.112ZXLFDhttps://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>I'm no attorney either, though I've had to prosecute the law on numerous occasions, but I think the plaintiff legislators failed to present the legislative intent of the 1945 law where they were never envisioning the use of it for a statewide epidemic. Nor did they attempt to compare the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/basics/past-pandemics.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">two worldwide pandemics</a> that occurred between 1945 and 1976, the first happening in 1957-58…</p>
<p>I'm no attorney either, though I've had to prosecute the law on numerous occasions, but I think the plaintiff legislators failed to present the legislative intent of the 1945 law where they were never envisioning the use of it for a statewide epidemic. Nor did they attempt to compare the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/basics/past-pandemics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">two worldwide pandemics</a> that occurred between 1945 and 1976, the first happening in 1957-58 killing 116,000 Americans, which would be the equivalent of 230,000 Americans in 2020 with our increased population. The 1968 H3N2 killed 100K Americans (roughly 170K with 2020 population). Neither governor at those times used the EPGA to assume absolute power.</p>
<p>Perhaps that's why the legislature added the explicit term "epidemic" in the 1976 law, to allow for emergency powers to be utilized during times of a supervirus or superbacterium. When two separate laws can apply to a certain situation and it's taken to court, most judges defer to the most recent law, because it is understood that the lawmakers knew of the prior law's application. One could argue that since the first law isn't repealed, that it could still be relevant when figuring out what applies-- that's what the governor's lawyers argue, the majority ruled on, and what you've acceded. </p>
<p>I just think it's a weak and counter-Constitutional view, which is why I think the Supreme Court will knock it down, using reasoning much like Judge Tukel used in his voluminous dissent.</p> I'm no attorney but it seems…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2020-09-04:4689834:Comment:11823122020-09-04T18:31:38.877ZWillyhttps://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/willy
<p>I'm no attorney but it seems to me that as long as the 1945 law is on the books, the Governor can enforce it's regulations. It's up to the legislature to remove the old law from the books and that is why everyone needs to get out and sign the petition <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/unlock-michigan?xg_source=activity&xg_raw_resources=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">UNLOCK MICHIGAN</a>. This petition instructs the Legislature to cancel the 1945 law so that the…</p>
<p>I'm no attorney but it seems to me that as long as the 1945 law is on the books, the Governor can enforce it's regulations. It's up to the legislature to remove the old law from the books and that is why everyone needs to get out and sign the petition <a href="http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/unlock-michigan?xg_source=activity&xg_raw_resources=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNLOCK MICHIGAN</a>. This petition instructs the Legislature to cancel the 1945 law so that the 1975 law will be the only legislation Whitmer can enforce regarding the Covid19 lockdown.</p>