It is called protecting the Constitution and it was an illegal order.
Whats going on with all these people ready to give up their rights?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
It is called protecting the Constitution and it was an illegal order.
First this is a State court case so the Federal constitution is not the objection here.
Nah the Court did not find it illegal with any legal basis.....thye were presented with two political arguments and chose the Conservative one.
Remember the Governor already had the power to close schools and business for a health epidemic, that was already in the law. The legislature, who is GOP, decided that the Governor should have submitted the order to teh legislature committe to be voted on and then presented to the house and voted on. Not a requirement for a Governor executive order so the judges voted basically on party line affiliation and not any law.
the fact that you cannot cite anything from the case that shows legal justification proves you never read the decision and that the GOP rushed it to the state Supreme Court because a conservative judge was stepping down in a few days.
I cannot wait until Congress nullifies a Trump executive order and says he should have sent it to Congress first to be voted on by the Dem House.....
I love the support of politicizing the court being supported here but God forbid the Supreme Court hearings become politicized.
You lost. Get over it.
I don't live in Wisconsin so.....try to be less mentally challenged. It is like you are autistic but high enough on the scale to function but not put together an intelligent thought.
It was not judicial activism in my view.. in that the Court did not overrule the legislature and substitute their oven views.
What they said is that the Wisconsin executive branch does have the authority to walk all over our Constitutional rights the way they had.
its not like the court made new laws or substituted their views for the legislature or a referendum. Part of the legislature sued and said the administration did not have the power.
the court agreed.
What they said is that the Wisconsin executive branch does have the authority to walk all over our Constitutional rights the way they had.
its not like the court made new laws or substituted their views for the legislature or a referendum. Part of the legislature sued and said the administration did not have the power.
the court agreed.
Huh? You got more of a response than you deserved. A court upholds the Constitution and its judicial activism?
Your argument is incoherent.
Where in the Consitution does it say a Governor cannot close schools and business during a health epidemic?
I will wait...
I will wait...
I suggest we read the Wis Sup Ct case because the is not what I said...
here is a bit of it.
https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/wi_legislature_v._andrea_palm_-_decision.pdf
We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis. 2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. § 227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28. Because they were not, Emergency Order 28 is unenforceable.6 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 252.25 required that Emergency Order 28 be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow, as we explain fully below. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people. ¶4 We do not conclude that Palm was without any power to act in the face of this pandemic. However, Palm must follow the law that is applicable to state-wide emergencies. We further conclude that Palm's order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. § 252.02 upon which Palm claims to rely.7 6 This decision does not apply to Section 4. a. of Emergency Order 28. 7 The Legislature's petition included a third issue: "Even if the Department did not violate [Wis. Stat.] § 227.24, whether the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing No. 2020AP765-OA 4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 Although we do not address the Governo
here is a bit of it.
https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/wi_legislature_v._andrea_palm_-_decision.pdf
We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis. 2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. § 227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28. Because they were not, Emergency Order 28 is unenforceable.6 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 252.25 required that Emergency Order 28 be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow, as we explain fully below. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people. ¶4 We do not conclude that Palm was without any power to act in the face of this pandemic. However, Palm must follow the law that is applicable to state-wide emergencies. We further conclude that Palm's order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. § 252.02 upon which Palm claims to rely.7 6 This decision does not apply to Section 4. a. of Emergency Order 28. 7 The Legislature's petition included a third issue: "Even if the Department did not violate [Wis. Stat.] § 227.24, whether the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing No. 2020AP765-OA 4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 Although we do not address the Governo
Last edited:
read the case carefully...it does not say the order was Unconstitutional like some of your armchair lawyers wish to claim. Also many of you did not read the case.
This was not about the Governor's order... Palm is not the Governor.
Before many of you cite a case to support your position it would help to read it no?
First of all,
On April 16, 2020, Palm issued Emergency Order 28, also titled "Safer at Home Order." This order was not issued by the Governor, nor did it rely on the Governor's emergency declaration. Rather, it relied solely on "the authority vested in [Andrea Palm, Department of Health Services Secretary-designee] by the Laws of the State, including but not limited to [Wis. Stat. §] 252.02(3), (4), and (6)." Emergency Order 28 commands all individuals in Wisconsin "to stay at home or at their place of residence" with certain limited exceptions approved by Palm or risk punishment "by up to 30 days imprisonment, or up to $250 fine, or both."8
Second, the head of the DHS issued her own order to to stay at home. This is not an executive order from the Governor which WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGAL. What was called into question was the DHS Secxretary making a rule without following the procedure:
The crux of the Legislature's claims is that Emergency Order 28 was promulgated without following required statutory procedures applicable to an emergency, and in so doing, Palm No. 2020AP765-OA 9 impinged upon the Legislature's constitutional core power and its functions under Wis. Stat. §§ 227.24 and 227.26.
The Court found that the issue is that Palm is NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL and was passing a rule that affecting all of Wisconsin. In that repect the court found that
Rulemaking exists precisely to ensure that kind of controlling, subjective judgment asserted by one unelected official, Palm, is not imposed in Wisconsin.
The bigger issues is an unelected official head of an agency created a criminal penalty which is not allowed under Wisconsin law without rulemaking process which is done in the legislature. The Governor has such power but this was not done by the Governor.
In fact this COURT found specifically:
As we said at the beginning of this decision, the Governor's emergency powers are not challenged by the Legislature, and Palm does not rely on the Governor's emergency powers. Constitutional law has generally permitted the Governor to respond to emergencies without the need for legislative approval. "With no time for ex ante deliberation, and no metric for ex post assessments, the executive's capacities for swift, vigorous, and secretive action are at a premium." Deborah N. Pearlstein, Form and Function in the National Security Constitution, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1549, 1565 (2009)
So there was no challenge to the Consitutionality of a Governor issuing an exeuctive order under emergency powers here and the Court SAID SO. it was a challenge to an agency head that issued the order, an unelected agency head on their own authority.
Finally the Court's conclusion is based on the rule making process:
Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. § 227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28. Because they were not, Emergency Order 28 is unenforceable.21 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 252.25 required that Emergency Order 28 be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.
So to summarize for your non-lawyers and those of who did not take the extra time to read the actual case let me hit you with the TL
R highlights:1. DHS Secy issues an order to stay at home with criminal penalties.
2. Governor did not issue the order and the DHS Secy did not rely on Governor's declaration of emergency as authority.
3. DHS issued an order with criminal penalties.
4. Court said an agency cannot issue a rule making something criminal without a rule making process that goes through the legislature.
5. DHS Secy did not go through legislature so the ORDER 28 is not valid based on not following the process.
6. Court DID NOT DECIDE that a stay at home order is unconstitutional
7. COURT did say that if the order went through the legislature and was issed it would be 100% LEGAL.
8. Court recognize GOvernor's power to declare emergency and stay at home but that is now what happened here.
So afte reading the case carefully (which 99% of you didnt) from a legal standpoint the Court's ruling makes sense on procedure not being followed in line with Wisconsin laws.
ANyone who reads this case as saying Governor's orders are unconstitutional or this order was deemed unconstitutional is stretching the truth and has no basis for saying so and is just trolling.
Watch who responds and ignores everything I wrote here.