-
-
I came across an old deck of playing cards a few days ago with all of the candidates for Governor when Gray Davis was recalled. I kinda wonder where history would have turned out differently if that hadn’t happened or if someone besides Ahnold would have won. Would Jerry Brown have had a second term? Would Newsome have been elected? So many questions.sigpic "On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"
"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Comment
-
10/15/2022 - Called to get on the list
2/18/2023 - Interview set
4/27/2023 - Class
4/30/2023 - Live Scan
5/9/2023 - Interview
6/26/2023 - Approval Letter
8/1/2023 - IssuedComment
-
This was one of, if not, THE primary concerns if Newsom survived the recall; i.e., he'd figure a 'bullet proof' status, allowing him to do as he will. As such, when it comes to COVID, the only way I see is along the lines of what is suggested...
In short, we need to address the status of the 'emergency;' particularly given that many public health officials and experts have, in essence and in fact, suggested and/or declared COVID to now be endemic. If we can get the 'emergency' called into question, we can then get use of 'emergency powers' called into question.Comment
-
Newsom is an agent of the CCP.Comment
-
Yes, because the rich white guy was the non-racist choice while the not quite a rich black guy was the "black face of white supremacy". I gave up math at linear equations, so I can't do the proof, but I'm sure that Balgor will be along shortly to explain it to us."What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
"Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
I like my guns like the left likes their voters-"undocumented".Comment
-
It’s so flat it’s concave now. I pretty much expect Gavin to continue with “the emergency” for a few more years. I would say ……. 4 maybe 6 more years. Then on to the presidency to take over for Kameltoe. It’s sort of a wrestling tag team match. By then the conservatives will either of won or be brow beaten into a puddle of systemic racist jello never to be solid enough to raise a ruckus. Indoctrination of children to the LGBTQ woke liberal nation will be complete and eventually we will be a province of China. maybe Russia. I would prefer Russia. At last Putin has a set of brass balls and tells people to F off.Last edited by Rob454; 11-19-2021, 11:27 PM.Comment
-
Would someone please show me in the U.S. constitution where the "EMERGENCY POWERS" section is?Last edited by Term; 11-19-2021, 11:45 PM.Originally posted by tonelarComment
-
Be careful what you ask for. "Emergency Powers" is one of those amorphous 'grey areas' Constitutionally. While they are not there explicitly, it is argued that they are there implicitly.
At the Federal level, the simple explanation is...
There's more at that link and volumes in various libraries. Suffice to say that it is a debate with substance on both sides of the equation. This piece... A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use... came out in 2019. It provides a list of myriad codifications, very brief summaries of when certain powers become available, and links to a variety of pertinent information. The first four listed are... "Emergency Framework Statutes." The remainder...The Constitution does not expressly grant the President additional war powers or other powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Nevertheless, because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the Judiciary cannot grant these powers to the Executive Branch when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the President...
In 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act, codified at , in response to the continued existence of four declared national emergencies, the oldest of which had been in place for forty years. The Act did not revoke the outstanding emergency declarations, but instituted an expiration date on existing declared emergencies, barring further action. It also provided for a variety of termination methods, including the automatic termination of a national emergency upon its anniversary every year, if the President does not act to renew it...
At the State level, it becomes a bit more mixed as to the implicit and explicit nature of the 'authorities'... Legislative Oversight of Emergency Executive Powers (Updated as of 11/2/21)
As I've said, quite a few times now, this is precisely why people become very nervous when political leaders begin talk of declaring an 'emergency.' There are broad, though to some, 'nebulous' powers which can be invoked and, while the 'Constitutionality' of those powers is fodder for many classrooms and debates (not to mention legal cases), in many respects, they are legitimate, legal 'gray areas.' Remember, you can't argue that because something isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution that it doesn't exist or isn't Constitutional. As such, the expression I often use is that Presidents and Governors (among others in Government) will attempt to enforce whatever they can with what 'muscle' that's available. As an example: It's why Biden's Mandate is still 'up in the air' in that even Biden acknowledged it may not stand up to legal scrutiny, but they were going to utilize (what many refer to as 'unique interpretations' of the authority within) various agencies to enforce it.Comment
-
-
As I said, opinions/interpretations among actual experts vary and even if something isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it's, by default, 'unconstitutional.' Thus, there are a whole lot of 'grey areas' in Constitutional law. (A prime example is found in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence and legislation.)
You might try (from 1990)... Emergency in the Constitutional Law of the United States
As was alluded to in my previous post, the 'modifier' is found in the 'checks & balances' among the three branches. As was also noted in the previous post and the above piece...In the following report I shall concentrate on the law as pronounced by the United States Supreme Court, which has, within the sphere of judicial competence, the last say on the interpretation of the Constitution. The volume of significant litigation on the subject which stops below the Supreme Court has been relatively light, and the constitutional law declared by the lower courts has played a less significant role than is the case in many other issues. Indeed, as we shall see, the Supreme Court itself has had less to say on the topic than might be hoped for. I shall try to indicate the main lines of scholarly debate, which is vast in quantity, if not always in insight; but it must be said that in constitutional law as a whole, and in this area in particular, the influence of scholarly opinion on the behavior of governments and courts has been less than may be observed in other fields of American law...
Neither the term "emergency" nor any cognate of comparable generality appears in the text of the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the Framers considered the question of how to deal with emergencies, or "exigencies"' , and believed that they had fashioned document which would permit the government to do so effectively. Evidence of this thinking in the document itself can be seen in two forms: (i) allocation of authority over particular functions clearly relating to emergency situations, and (ii) express exceptions to general rules conditioned on the existence of such situations. The lists themselves, which may be thought rather modest in length for a 20th-century superpower, are instructive as to what was understood at that time to be involved...
This is why I have noted in other threads and earlier in this one that we need to address the status of the 'emergency;' particularly given that many public health officials and experts have, in essence and in fact, suggested and/or declared COVID to now be endemic. If we can get the 'emergency' called into question, we can then get use of 'emergency powers' called into question. I think this is what many are hoping will be part of the now consolidated cases in the 6th Circuit; particularly as the most prominent, the 5th Circuit case, garnered its stay on the mandate, in part, on a 'delegation' (more an assumption) of legislative powers to an executive branch agency under the auspices an 'emergency.'...In general, the Court has been extremely deferential to the relevant political authority's determination that a war, invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or emergency exists for constitutional purposes...
Occasionally, however, the Court has imposed some limiting definitions on the government...
Throughout our constitutional history, strong presidents have claimed not only that the Constitution provides ample authority to deal with emergencies as well as normal times, but that the executive is the preeminent holder of such authority. In its more extreme form, the so-called "stewardship theory", the claim denies to Congress any non-enumerated power to control executive action. Most often the argument has been that this preeminence is inherent in the executive power, of which the enumerations in Art. II (commander-in-chief, appointment, pardon, faithful execution of the laws) are only particular manifestations. The Supreme Court's responses to these claims have been mostly non-committal, although it has accepted the idea that the grant of executive power has some content beyond the specific enumerations. One reason for this judicial reticence, no doubt, is that in our great emergencies Congress has usually granted the executive unusual authority in advance or
has ratified his emergency action afterward...
By far the most important basis for what everyone has perceived as a massive shift of law-making authority to the Executive from the Legislative branch in this century, however, has been legislative delegation...
The orthodox theory that the U.S. Constitution provides the government with all the powers it needs to deal with any emergency has been adhered to quite faithfully by the Supreme Court. While the document itself provides for wartime exceptions to certain specific limitations on government action, most of the flexibility has been supplied by a principle of interpretation which has been consistently applied (if not always acknowledged): when measuring assertions of governmental power against purported constitutional limitations, the importance of the government's purpose will be taken into account to the extent the constitutional language permits, and greater deference will be given to the government's judgment in times of military emergency. Tension arises, of course, when the Court undertakes its own evaluation of the emergency; but on the whole it has done so in the calm after the storm has passed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify an instance in which judicial intervention has prevented effective emergency action.
Bear in mind that 'emergency powers' has been a subject of intense debate post-9/11 and the resultant 'abandonment' of 'checks & balances' powers many feel the Judiciary and Legislature have exercised is the source for much of that debate.Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-20-2021, 2:21 AM.Comment
Tweet
There are currently 2564 users online. 29 members and 2535 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 11:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment