Republicans in the Michigan legislature have been saying it for months: Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ridiculous and overly restrictive COVID-19 lockdowns and other restrictions were illegal and unconstitutional under state statutes.
And it turns out they were exactly right.
As reported by The Epoch Times, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled last week that the governor greatly overstepped her bounds when she imposed restrictions and lockdown orders that shuttered businesses as “non-essential,” forbade residents from assembling in public, and forced well people to wear masks.
The outlet notes:
The Michigan Supreme Court has struck down an emergency powers law used by the state’s governor to keep the lockdown and other restrictions in place amid the CCP virus pandemic.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has repeatedly used the 1945 law to extend her “state of emergency” over the past several months to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
In a 4-3 ruling, the state high court declared the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act unconstitutional. The law allowed power-mad governors like Whitmer the ability to declare a state of emergency and then maintain them for as long as she wanted, with no legislative oversight or approval.
After a summer of lockdowns that still have not stopped the spread of the virus, Whitmer again extended her order, the current version of which was set to expire Sept. 29, until October 27…and then, she would have probably extended it again.
And this was always the problem with such emergency orders: What is/was the endgame — fewer coronavirus infections? None at all? What about the next time COVID-19 comes around…more lockdowns?
Such orders were, and remain, horrific abuses of power, and at least in Michigan, the state’s highest court agrees.
“We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA [1976 Emergency Management Act] after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the court ruled, citing the expiration date of her initial order — the last day that the GOP-controlled legislature authorized it.
“Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA [1945 Emergency Powers of Governor Act] is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of the state government—including its plenary police powers—and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely,” the high court ruling said, adding: “As a consequence, the EPGA cannot continue to provide a basis for the Governor to exercise emergency powers.”
Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield lauded the court’s ruling.
“The Supreme Court ruled today in agreement with the legislature that the 1945 law is unconstitutional. The governor had no right to extend the state of emergency over the Legislature’s objection. Our Constitution matters, and this was a big win for our democratic process,” he wrote on Twitter.
“We will now continue our partnership with our governor. We will work through this challenge as our Constitution requires and as we always have in times past—together,” he added. (Related: OBEY OR ELSE: New England Journal of Medicine says people refusing MANDATORY coronavirus vaccines should be severely punished, locked in their homes and fired from their jobs.)
And therein was the problem to begin with: Whitmer didn’t want to hear from the Republican-controlled legislature. She didn’t think she needed their input. She — like most other Democratic leaders — wants to be a dictator, not a ‘partner’ in one branch of government to run the state.
Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court’s ruling came on the same day that a group, “Unlock Michigan,” submitted more than 539,000 signatures as part of a petition to get the 1945 law thrown out.
Defiant as always, Whitmer declared after the ruling, “It is important to note that this ruling does not take effect for at least 21 days, and until then, my emergency declaration and orders retain the force of law.
“Furthermore, after 21 days, many of the responsive measures I have put in place to control the spread of the virus will continue under alternative sources of authority that were not at issue in today’s ruling.”
Always the authoritarian Democrat.
Still, that might be kind of hard, since the state attorney general says she’s no longer going to enforce the order.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.