Are Emergency Powers A Test To See What Americans Will Put Up With?
by Tyler Durden
During the hysteria of the covid pandemic questions swirled around how the federal government would respond to the events under the declaration of a national health emergency. What kind of powers would they claim to have and which constitutional rights would they try to suppress? What many Americans did not consider, however, was the implementation of emergency powers under state governments rather than the White House.
Most of the covid mandates crushing the US economy during that period were not federal mandates, but state mandates, and there’s a good reason why covid tyrants chose to focus on state level restrcitions.
There are a number of requirements and obstacles for any president seeking to enforce mandates at the federal level, along with more scrutiny and oversight than is commonly understood. Though a president can declare emergencies unilaterally, there are still some legal checks and balances (to be sure, these are quietly being eroded with each passing year).
On the other hand, state governors in 44 states have sweeping authorities under emergency conditions, with very little immediate legal recourse. As we have seen recently in places like Hawaii and now New Mexico, Democrat governors have been playing with fire (no pun intended) as they seek to push the envelope of emergency controls at the state level.
In Hawaii, the exploitation of state emergency provisions under Governor Josh Green led to possibly thousands of deaths as they refused to release water supplies for fire fighting and even blockaded Maui residents, forcing them back into the blaze. They have even put an information blackout in place and denied news organizations access to the scene of the disaster. One has to ask – Was this done out of stupidity? Or was this a test to see what kinds of trespasses and controls citizens would accept?
In New Mexico we see a similar extreme overstep by Governor Michelle Grisham, who believes she has the authority to dictate the 2nd Amendment rights of Albuquerque residents due to rising crime. The level of mental gymnastics on display in her arguments to justify the banning of lawful open carry and conceal carry protections make it clear that this is not about protecting the public. The lack of logic and reason indicates that this is an ideological decision based in zealotry. Watch as she struggles to present any reasonable position – turning instead to deflection.
After suspending the right to carry firearms, New Mexico’s Governor just said her duty to uphold her oath to the constitution is “not absolute” pic.twitter.com/wY3xSwIUIs
— John Hasson (@SonofHas) September 9, 2023
The root of her argument is this: “I am banning legal firearms carry in Albuquerque because under emergency powers I can.”
That’s it. That’s all she’s got.
But this is not a valid argument and there are a number of reasons why.