Coronavirus Reopenings and Lifted Restrictions - with the ensuing legal and PR shitshows
- Thread starter Tour of Italy
- Start date
It's too soon. You know people won't be responsible with the eased restrictions, and we'll be back to where we are, or in a worse position.
Oregon is planning on reopening restaurants and bars...as long as customers are placed six feet from one another, recommended (mandatory) masks are worn, and the govorner is strongly pushing for owners to collect the names of patrons and the date/time they entered the establishment. Everything (including the bats) will still be closed by 10:00 pm as well.
Fuck. That. Especially wanting to collect info on someone for wanting a burger or beer.
Fuck. That. Especially wanting to collect info on someone for wanting a burger or beer.
Seeing shit like this all over the place. Tracking us everywhere with our damn cellphones isn't enough anymore for these power-grabbers, fucking hell. Willing to bet they're taking every opportunity they can to keep tabs on every single individual so they can track exactly who votes for who come election time and do who knows what with that information.
According to the Portland Fish Wrapper, the draft as of yesterday did not include the collection of patron info, and masks are mandatory for employees but not customers.
Michigan, USA
Summary of the legislature's lawsuit against the governor, for any interested Michiganders or amateur law enthusiasts.
Rundown on the laws producing our current situation.
Full PDF of the lawsuit online.
Some choice quotes from the early pages:
Introduction
ETA: One new lawsuit and one I missed, bringing that total to eight that I'm aware of.
Summary of the legislature's lawsuit against the governor, for any interested Michiganders or amateur law enthusiasts.
Rundown on the laws producing our current situation.
Full PDF of the lawsuit online.
Some choice quotes from the early pages:
Introduction
Historic Background. The 1945 Emergency Powers Act was specifically tailored to rioting and civil unrest. When high waters caused a natural disaster in 1973, Governor William Miliken recognized that he had no authority to declare a state of emergency, which is what led to the passage of the 1976 Emergency Management Act. Since then, the 1976 act has been invoked 85 times, the 1945 act just once.
Recap of Governor Whitmer’s executive orders and the legislature’s activities during the current crisis.
On April 30, when her authority was set to expire, Governor Whitmer issued three orders, one of which declared the emergency terminated, another of which declares it was still in effect. Governor Whitmer thus acted self-contradictorily.
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
A. The legislature has not extended the state of emergency,
1. Her orders are inconsistent with the 1976 act’s plain text.
2. The Governor’s contrary interpretation would produce absurd results. That is, she could keep emergencies going indefinitely, and laws would come into effect and pass out of it, property would be seized and returned, for a few minutes in between the cessation of one emergency and the resunmption of the next, which is absurd. Further, her orders are contradictory. Further, she did not include a statement outlining the conditions for termination of the emergency, as required by the 1976 act.
3. Her interpretation renders the Legislature’s role in the 1976 act a nullity, against all legal principles.
4. Her interpretation defeats a central purpose of the statute: separation of powers.
B. The 1945 Act is only for acute, local emergencies, not indefinite, statewide ones.
1. The plain language of the state indicates as much.
2. Reading the two acts in conjunction confirms. Epidemics are listed as examples of “disasters” in the 1976 act, and the 1945 act has no relevance to “disasters.” In pari materia, more specific statutes control more general ones, and older statutes yield to newer.
3. Historical context. See above.
4. Constitutional concerns arise if this interpretation is not held.
C. Executive authority does not include the power to legislate, which is what Governor Whitmer is now doing.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
A. Legislative and executive power are separate in Michigan and America.
B. Legislative power is exclusively in the hands of the legislature. Including with regards to public health, by Article 4, Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution.
C. The Governor is unilaterally making laws.
D. The Governor’s lawmaking violates the separation of powers. Even if the legislature had intended to give legislative power to the governor, it could not constitutionally have done so.
E. The separation of powers is not diminished by crisis.
F. The 1945 Act’s delegation of power cannot save the Governor’s COVID-19 executive orders.
1. Her interpretation of the 1945 act would give her far more legislative power than the legislature could constitutionally delegate.
2. Even if they could, the 1945 Act lacks appropriate standards to guide her exercise. Constitutional delegation of legislative power (to agencies, for example) must clearly define the area of power and authority. Previous cases have used three criteria to determine whether statutes contain sufficient standards, and the Governor’s interpretation fails all three.
FIRST, the statute must be read as a whole. The 1945 act is exceptionally short, and its standard consists solely in two words “reasonable” and “necessary.”
SECOND, the standard must be as reasonably precise as possible. The Governor is claiming power over every possible public-policy area. She may respond that the phrases “to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control” are standards. They are not. They are goals, and ambiguous goals at that. The standards are “reasonable” and “necessary.”
The Governor may argue that, by the very nature of authority to deal with unforeseen crises, “reasonable” and “necessary” are as specific as they can be. But this “sounds much like the argument from necessity” already refuted.
Two other cases are compared.
THIRD, the statute must be construed, if possible, as conferring administrative, not legislative power; and as vesting discretionary, not arbitrary, authority. The legislature has already presented a constitutional interpretation of the 1945 act. If the legislature is right, the governor’s interpretation is wrong and her acts are without authority. “If she is right, then the act itself must fall.” This would not endanger the public, as the legislature would continue to cooperate with the governor in passing emergency measures.
Conclusion:
Recap of Governor Whitmer’s executive orders and the legislature’s activities during the current crisis.
On April 30, when her authority was set to expire, Governor Whitmer issued three orders, one of which declared the emergency terminated, another of which declares it was still in effect. Governor Whitmer thus acted self-contradictorily.
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
A. The legislature has not extended the state of emergency,
1. Her orders are inconsistent with the 1976 act’s plain text.
2. The Governor’s contrary interpretation would produce absurd results. That is, she could keep emergencies going indefinitely, and laws would come into effect and pass out of it, property would be seized and returned, for a few minutes in between the cessation of one emergency and the resunmption of the next, which is absurd. Further, her orders are contradictory. Further, she did not include a statement outlining the conditions for termination of the emergency, as required by the 1976 act.
3. Her interpretation renders the Legislature’s role in the 1976 act a nullity, against all legal principles.
4. Her interpretation defeats a central purpose of the statute: separation of powers.
B. The 1945 Act is only for acute, local emergencies, not indefinite, statewide ones.
1. The plain language of the state indicates as much.
2. Reading the two acts in conjunction confirms. Epidemics are listed as examples of “disasters” in the 1976 act, and the 1945 act has no relevance to “disasters.” In pari materia, more specific statutes control more general ones, and older statutes yield to newer.
3. Historical context. See above.
4. Constitutional concerns arise if this interpretation is not held.
C. Executive authority does not include the power to legislate, which is what Governor Whitmer is now doing.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
A. Legislative and executive power are separate in Michigan and America.
B. Legislative power is exclusively in the hands of the legislature. Including with regards to public health, by Article 4, Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution.
C. The Governor is unilaterally making laws.
D. The Governor’s lawmaking violates the separation of powers. Even if the legislature had intended to give legislative power to the governor, it could not constitutionally have done so.
E. The separation of powers is not diminished by crisis.
F. The 1945 Act’s delegation of power cannot save the Governor’s COVID-19 executive orders.
1. Her interpretation of the 1945 act would give her far more legislative power than the legislature could constitutionally delegate.
2. Even if they could, the 1945 Act lacks appropriate standards to guide her exercise. Constitutional delegation of legislative power (to agencies, for example) must clearly define the area of power and authority. Previous cases have used three criteria to determine whether statutes contain sufficient standards, and the Governor’s interpretation fails all three.
FIRST, the statute must be read as a whole. The 1945 act is exceptionally short, and its standard consists solely in two words “reasonable” and “necessary.”
SECOND, the standard must be as reasonably precise as possible. The Governor is claiming power over every possible public-policy area. She may respond that the phrases “to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control” are standards. They are not. They are goals, and ambiguous goals at that. The standards are “reasonable” and “necessary.”
The Governor may argue that, by the very nature of authority to deal with unforeseen crises, “reasonable” and “necessary” are as specific as they can be. But this “sounds much like the argument from necessity” already refuted.
Two other cases are compared.
THIRD, the statute must be construed, if possible, as conferring administrative, not legislative power; and as vesting discretionary, not arbitrary, authority. The legislature has already presented a constitutional interpretation of the 1945 act. If the legislature is right, the governor’s interpretation is wrong and her acts are without authority. “If she is right, then the act itself must fall.” This would not endanger the public, as the legislature would continue to cooperate with the governor in passing emergency measures.
Conclusion:
1. Three candidates for political office vs. Governor Whitmer. On the grounds that her stay-at-home order impairs their ability to collect the needed signatures to run for office. Originally filed around April 1(?). (archive).
U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg orders Michigan to extend deadline from April 21 to May 8, to cut required number of signatures by 50%, and to allow electronic signature gathering. April 20 thru 25 (archive).
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that while Michigan needs to change something, the court does not have the authority to say exactly what, May 5 (archive).
2. Steve Martinko, Michael and Wendy Lackomar, and Jerry Frost vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Detroit Federal Court April 14, with attorney David Helm. Three complaints. I: Seizing property without compensation. II: That landscaping should be considered essential. III, that Mr. Frost's freedom of association is violated since he can't visit his girlfriend of 14 years. Ongoing (news article archive).
3. Kimberly Beemer, a Saginaw attorney, Paul Cavanaugh, who has a Livingston County landscaping business, and Robert Muise, an Ann Arbor attorney vs. Whitmer, along with county prosecutors in Charlevoix, Livingston and Washtenaw counties. Filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court, April 16(?) with attorneys Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi. On the grounds that the governor's measures are arbitrary and unreasonable. Ongoing (news article archive).
4. Nathan Vander Zwaag, Chase Turkstra and Henry Frerik vs. Governor Whitmer. Filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court April 17(?), with Holland attorney William Sikkel IV. Over the motorboating ban. The ban has since been lifted. I do not know whether the lawsuit will continue. (news article archive).
5. Steve Martinko, owner of an Oakland County landscaping business, and four other Michigan residents vs. Governor Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel and DNR Director Daniel Eichinger, filed on April 23(?), Case number. 20-00062-MM. Sought ex parte temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction against the stay at home order and a determination that the challenged restrictions and the EMA are invalid. Ex parte temporary restraining order denied April 23. Preliminary injunction denied by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray April 29 (news article archive, judge's ruling).
6. U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell III (R- The Thumb) vs. Governor Whitmer and MDHHS Director Robert Gordon, filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court May 4. Ongoing. Full PDF online, pdf on KF.
7. Michigan House of Representatives and Senate vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Michigan Court of Claims May 6. Ongoing. Full PDF online.
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
8. Three Protestant churches and organizations, three leaders thereof as individuals, and the director of the Michigan Association of Christian Schools as an individual, vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court May 6, with the Great Lakes Justice Center, a Christian (mostly Protestant, from a glance over their website) advocacy group. On the grounds that Governor Whitmer has no authority to extend her shutdown past April 30, besides infringing freedom of religion; freedom of expression/association/assembly; procedural due process; substantive due process; Article 4 Section 4 guaranteeing a republican form of government; separation of powers; the 1945 and 1976 acts; the Michigan constitution’s guarantees of freedom of worship, speech, and assembly. Ongoing.
Extremely similar to Rep. Mitchell's suit. The key new point here is that the latest shutdown order says that “neither a place of religious worship nor its owner” could be charged for “allowing religious worship at such place,” but has no such protection for the congregants. (article - archive - pdf of lawsuit)
U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg orders Michigan to extend deadline from April 21 to May 8, to cut required number of signatures by 50%, and to allow electronic signature gathering. April 20 thru 25 (archive).
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that while Michigan needs to change something, the court does not have the authority to say exactly what, May 5 (archive).
2. Steve Martinko, Michael and Wendy Lackomar, and Jerry Frost vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Detroit Federal Court April 14, with attorney David Helm. Three complaints. I: Seizing property without compensation. II: That landscaping should be considered essential. III, that Mr. Frost's freedom of association is violated since he can't visit his girlfriend of 14 years. Ongoing (news article archive).
3. Kimberly Beemer, a Saginaw attorney, Paul Cavanaugh, who has a Livingston County landscaping business, and Robert Muise, an Ann Arbor attorney vs. Whitmer, along with county prosecutors in Charlevoix, Livingston and Washtenaw counties. Filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court, April 16(?) with attorneys Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi. On the grounds that the governor's measures are arbitrary and unreasonable. Ongoing (news article archive).
4. Nathan Vander Zwaag, Chase Turkstra and Henry Frerik vs. Governor Whitmer. Filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court April 17(?), with Holland attorney William Sikkel IV. Over the motorboating ban. The ban has since been lifted. I do not know whether the lawsuit will continue. (news article archive).
6. U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell III (R- The Thumb) vs. Governor Whitmer and MDHHS Director Robert Gordon, filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court May 4. Ongoing. Full PDF online, pdf on KF.
I: Violation of the U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 4, guaranteeing to each state the right to a republican form of government.
II: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause (right to a republican government, right to health care)
III: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, procedural (violated rights to intrastate travel, political association, political speech, to medical care, to engage in commerce, and deprivation of property interest).
IV: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, substantial ("shocking the conscience" and "interfering with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty")
V: That the executive orders are "void for vagueness."
VI: Violation of separation of powers.
VII: Unlawful exercise of emergency powers act (the law authorizes states of emergency in cases of public safety, which is legally distinct from public health; the governor may issue orders for specific zones, not the whole state; orders must be reasonable and hers are not)
VIII: Unlawful exercise of emergency management act (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do; the Governor is supposed to specify the conditions for the end of the emergency and Governor Whitmer has not; the legislature has not renewed the emergency but she's issuing orders anyway)
IX: Unlawful exercise of public health code (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do).
II: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause (right to a republican government, right to health care)
III: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, procedural (violated rights to intrastate travel, political association, political speech, to medical care, to engage in commerce, and deprivation of property interest).
IV: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, substantial ("shocking the conscience" and "interfering with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty")
V: That the executive orders are "void for vagueness."
VI: Violation of separation of powers.
VII: Unlawful exercise of emergency powers act (the law authorizes states of emergency in cases of public safety, which is legally distinct from public health; the governor may issue orders for specific zones, not the whole state; orders must be reasonable and hers are not)
VIII: Unlawful exercise of emergency management act (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do; the Governor is supposed to specify the conditions for the end of the emergency and Governor Whitmer has not; the legislature has not renewed the emergency but she's issuing orders anyway)
IX: Unlawful exercise of public health code (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do).
7. Michigan House of Representatives and Senate vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Michigan Court of Claims May 6. Ongoing. Full PDF online.
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
8. Three Protestant churches and organizations, three leaders thereof as individuals, and the director of the Michigan Association of Christian Schools as an individual, vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court May 6, with the Great Lakes Justice Center, a Christian (mostly Protestant, from a glance over their website) advocacy group. On the grounds that Governor Whitmer has no authority to extend her shutdown past April 30, besides infringing freedom of religion; freedom of expression/association/assembly; procedural due process; substantive due process; Article 4 Section 4 guaranteeing a republican form of government; separation of powers; the 1945 and 1976 acts; the Michigan constitution’s guarantees of freedom of worship, speech, and assembly. Ongoing.
Extremely similar to Rep. Mitchell's suit. The key new point here is that the latest shutdown order says that “neither a place of religious worship nor its owner” could be charged for “allowing religious worship at such place,” but has no such protection for the congregants. (article - archive - pdf of lawsuit)
Last edited:
God fuck off Wolf, we're fine in Berks. Jesus christ.
It's progress but waiting more than another entire fucking month is getting so tiresome.
I live in Montgomery County, probably the last County to open along with Philly, and I've been getting some information that we may be open between May 28 and June 1. Not sure how the powers that be are predicting that given that we haven't even come close to meeting Wolf's criteria for reopening, but the courts are citing June 1 as the time they will start reopening.
Not only that, but the plate umpire was wearing a mask under his umpire's mask:
From what else I've read, some US youth or recreational leagues that still hope to play games this year have informed their umpires that they would be required to stand behind the pitcher to call balls and strikes and not from their usual position behind the catcher -- presumably in the name of social distancing.
(E: remove duplicate words)
Last edited:
It keeps getting pushed further and further and further along every time we check. Call me MOTI but it's breached into whole new territories of obnoxiousness.
So you think May 28-June 1 won't see Montco start to reopen?
I'm saying that as long as the east coast is tied to that faggot, Cuomo, we're going to be strung along by New York's bullshit and treated like we're a death zone. Moreover with how this entire affair is being handled state-to-state with politicization in mind. It was never about safety and they'll never admit the handling has been overblown to hell and back; any stretch they can make to keep the lockdown chugging along, they will until the supply chain is absolutely fucked beyond repair, as are people's finances.
But New Jersey is starting to lift its restrictions on boardwalks and such.
Also, I'm honestly worried that we'll fuck ourselves if we open soon, since the curve just flattened and isn't decreasing as fast as we'd hoped. It seems like the second wave will hit us like a flaming semi-truck if we open soon.
Tom Wolf's a Cuomo NPC level faggot who can't be bothered with supporting a bill that would give the press and public access to government records during a disaster all while championing transparency in government, all while it passed in the state house with near-universal bipartisan support (Republicans control both houses of state Congress). Fuck this bearded egg faggot.
"I'm trying to be transparent." - Tom Wolf on not supporting a bill that would give transparency.
More AWS-8Q Than You
kiwifarms.net
An Ohio update, for anyways who cares, we finally have dates for opening salons and barbers, May 15th, and bars and restaurants open for outdoor service the 15th and indoor on the 21st. I'd assume social distancing applies, they can also require masks, although how you're supposed to eat food and maintain proper mask handling is a mystery known only to our enlightened Governor and Doktor Amy.
Meanwhile, we have a $775 Million budget shortfall, so there will be spending cuts, mostly in education, medicaid, and lots of hiring freezes. Also DeWine wants to hire Contract Trackers, because as everyone knows, the best time to close barn doors is after the horses have gotten out. The State House has moved on passing legislation to limit Doktor Amy's ability to continue to extend stay-at-home orders without legislative oversight, but they don't have veto proof majorities and DeWine has said he'll veto any attempt to rein in her power. He's also taken to attempting to shame anyone who doesn't want to wear a mask since we dared to push back on mandatory masks everywhere.
Still no antibody testing, testing beyond prisons and old folks homes, or straight answers about recovers and such. Or when gyms and campground will open. Ohio might as well have one of the nutty blue state governors at this point, just not as iron fisted. I honestly expect mass civil disobedience from people just ignoring direction at some point, people are getting tired of the lack of actual leadership or hard data.
Meanwhile, we have a $775 Million budget shortfall, so there will be spending cuts, mostly in education, medicaid, and lots of hiring freezes. Also DeWine wants to hire Contract Trackers, because as everyone knows, the best time to close barn doors is after the horses have gotten out. The State House has moved on passing legislation to limit Doktor Amy's ability to continue to extend stay-at-home orders without legislative oversight, but they don't have veto proof majorities and DeWine has said he'll veto any attempt to rein in her power. He's also taken to attempting to shame anyone who doesn't want to wear a mask since we dared to push back on mandatory masks everywhere.
Still no antibody testing, testing beyond prisons and old folks homes, or straight answers about recovers and such. Or when gyms and campground will open. Ohio might as well have one of the nutty blue state governors at this point, just not as iron fisted. I honestly expect mass civil disobedience from people just ignoring direction at some point, people are getting tired of the lack of actual leadership or hard data.
Michigan, USA
Golf carts are legal again on Michigan golf courses, according to Governor Whitmer (D)'s latest executive order.
www.mlive.com
(archive)
Golf carts are legal again on Michigan golf courses, according to Governor Whitmer (D)'s latest executive order.
Carts allowed back on Michigan golf courses after latest executive order
Michigan golf course owners can now use golf carts, and outdoor employees are allowed to return to work.
1. Three candidates for political office vs. Governor Whitmer. On the grounds that her stay-at-home order impairs their ability to collect the needed signatures to run for office. Originally filed around April 1(?). (archive).
U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg orders Michigan to extend deadline from April 21 to May 8, to cut required number of signatures by 50%, and to allow electronic signature gathering. April 20 thru 25 (archive).
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that while Michigan needs to change something, the court does not have the authority to say exactly what, May 5 (archive).
The State of Michigan has decided to voluntarily abide by the District court's orders. (archive)
2. Steve Martinko, Michael and Wendy Lackomar, and Jerry Frost vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Detroit Federal Court April 14, with attorney David Helm. Three complaints. I: Seizing property without compensation. II: That landscaping should be considered essential. III, that Mr. Frost's freedom of association is violated since he can't visit his girlfriend of 14 years. Ongoing (news article archive).
3. Kimberly Beemer, a Saginaw attorney, Paul Cavanaugh, who has a Livingston County landscaping business, and Robert Muise, an Ann Arbor attorney vs. Whitmer, along with county prosecutors in Charlevoix, Livingston and Washtenaw counties. Filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court, April 16(?) with attorneys Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi. On the grounds that the governor's measures are arbitrary and unreasonable. Ongoing (news article archive).
4. Nathan Vander Zwaag, Chase Turkstra and Henry Frerik vs. Governor Whitmer. Filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court April 17(?), with Holland attorney William Sikkel IV. Over the motorboating ban. The ban has since been lifted. I do not know whether the lawsuit will continue. (news article archive).
5. Steve Martinko, owner of an Oakland County landscaping business, and four other Michigan residents vs. Governor Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel and DNR Director Daniel Eichinger, filed on April 23(?), Case number. 20-00062-MM. Sought ex parte temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction against the stay at home order and a determination that the challenged restrictions and the EMA are invalid. Ex parte temporary restraining order denied April 23. Preliminary injunction denied by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray April 29 (news article archive, judge's ruling).
6. U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell III (R- The Thumb) vs. Governor Whitmer and MDHHS Director Robert Gordon, filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court May 4. Ongoing. Full PDF online, pdf on KF.
7. Michigan House of Representatives and Senate vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Michigan Court of Claims May 6. Judge Cynthia Stephens, a light-skinned Black woman appointed by Governor Jennifer Granholm (D), who has ruled in favor of Whitmer twice and in favor of the legislature once in cases in the last two years.
Governor Whitmer's legal team must file their response by May 12. Oral arguments will be heard May 15.
Ongoing. Full PDF online.
TL;DR
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
8. Three Protestant churches and organizations, three leaders thereof as individuals, and the director of the Michigan Association of Christian Schools as an individual, vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court May 6, with the Great Lakes Justice Center, a Christian (mostly Protestant, from a glance over their website) advocacy group. On the grounds that Governor Whitmer has no authority to extend her shutdown past April 30, besides infringing freedom of religion; freedom of expression/association/assembly; procedural due process; substantive due process; Article 4 Section 4 guaranteeing a republican form of government; separation of powers; the 1945 and 1976 acts; the Michigan constitution’s guarantees of freedom of worship, speech, and assembly. Suspended.
Extremely similar to Rep. Mitchell's suit. The key new point here is that the latest shutdown order says that “neither a place of religious worship nor its owner” could be charged for “allowing religious worship at such place,” but has no such protection for the congregants. (article - archive - pdf of lawsuit)
The newest order extends the exemption to those "engaging in or traveling to engage in religious worship at a place of religious worship," and so the plaintiffs have decided to refrain, for now, from serving the Governor (archive).
U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg orders Michigan to extend deadline from April 21 to May 8, to cut required number of signatures by 50%, and to allow electronic signature gathering. April 20 thru 25 (archive).
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that while Michigan needs to change something, the court does not have the authority to say exactly what, May 5 (archive).
The State of Michigan has decided to voluntarily abide by the District court's orders. (archive)
2. Steve Martinko, Michael and Wendy Lackomar, and Jerry Frost vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Detroit Federal Court April 14, with attorney David Helm. Three complaints. I: Seizing property without compensation. II: That landscaping should be considered essential. III, that Mr. Frost's freedom of association is violated since he can't visit his girlfriend of 14 years. Ongoing (news article archive).
3. Kimberly Beemer, a Saginaw attorney, Paul Cavanaugh, who has a Livingston County landscaping business, and Robert Muise, an Ann Arbor attorney vs. Whitmer, along with county prosecutors in Charlevoix, Livingston and Washtenaw counties. Filed in Grand Rapids U.S. District Court, April 16(?) with attorneys Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi. On the grounds that the governor's measures are arbitrary and unreasonable. Ongoing (news article archive).
4. Nathan Vander Zwaag, Chase Turkstra and Henry Frerik vs. Governor Whitmer. Filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court April 17(?), with Holland attorney William Sikkel IV. Over the motorboating ban. The ban has since been lifted. I do not know whether the lawsuit will continue. (news article archive).
6. U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell III (R- The Thumb) vs. Governor Whitmer and MDHHS Director Robert Gordon, filed in Grand Rapids Federal Court May 4. Ongoing. Full PDF online, pdf on KF.
I: Violation of the U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 4, guaranteeing to each state the right to a republican form of government.
II: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause (right to a republican government, right to health care)
III: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, procedural (violated rights to intrastate travel, political association, political speech, to medical care, to engage in commerce, and deprivation of property interest).
IV: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, substantial ("shocking the conscience" and "interfering with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty")
V: That the executive orders are "void for vagueness."
VI: Violation of separation of powers.
VII: Unlawful exercise of emergency powers act (the law authorizes states of emergency in cases of public safety, which is legally distinct from public health; the governor may issue orders for specific zones, not the whole state; orders must be reasonable and hers are not)
VIII: Unlawful exercise of emergency management act (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do; the Governor is supposed to specify the conditions for the end of the emergency and Governor Whitmer has not; the legislature has not renewed the emergency but she's issuing orders anyway)
IX: Unlawful exercise of public health code (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do).
II: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause (right to a republican government, right to health care)
III: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, procedural (violated rights to intrastate travel, political association, political speech, to medical care, to engage in commerce, and deprivation of property interest).
IV: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, substantial ("shocking the conscience" and "interfering with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty")
V: That the executive orders are "void for vagueness."
VI: Violation of separation of powers.
VII: Unlawful exercise of emergency powers act (the law authorizes states of emergency in cases of public safety, which is legally distinct from public health; the governor may issue orders for specific zones, not the whole state; orders must be reasonable and hers are not)
VIII: Unlawful exercise of emergency management act (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do; the Governor is supposed to specify the conditions for the end of the emergency and Governor Whitmer has not; the legislature has not renewed the emergency but she's issuing orders anyway)
IX: Unlawful exercise of public health code (Michigan as a whole does not have an "epidemic" even if some parts of it do).
7. Michigan House of Representatives and Senate vs. Governor Whitmer, filed in Michigan Court of Claims May 6. Judge Cynthia Stephens, a light-skinned Black woman appointed by Governor Jennifer Granholm (D), who has ruled in favor of Whitmer twice and in favor of the legislature once in cases in the last two years.
Governor Whitmer's legal team must file their response by May 12. Oral arguments will be heard May 15.
Ongoing. Full PDF online.
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
A. The legislature has not extended the state of emergency,
1. Her orders are inconsistent with the 1976 act’s plain text.
2. The Governor’s contrary interpretation would produce absurd results.
3. Her interpretation renders the Legislature’s role in the 1976 act a nullity.
4. Her interpretation defeats a central purpose of the statute: separation of powers.
B. The 1945 Act is only for acute, local emergencies, not indefinite, statewide ones.
1. The plain language of the state indicates as much.
2. Reading the two acts in conjunction confirms. In pari materia, more specific statutes control more general ones, and older statutes yield to newer.
3. Historical context.
4. Constitutional concerns arise if this interpretation is not held.
C. Executive authority does not include the power to legislate, which is what Governor Whitmer is now doing.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
A. Legislative and executive power are separate.
B. Legislative power is exclusively in the hands of the legislature.
C. The Governor is unilaterally making laws.
D. The Governor’s lawmaking violates the separation of powers. Even if the legislature had intended to give legislative power to the governor, it could not constitutionally have done so.
E. The separation of powers is not diminished by crisis.
F. The 1945 Act’s delegation of power cannot save the Governor’s COVID-19 executive orders.
1. Her interpretation of the 1945 act would give her far more legislative power than the legislature could constitutionally delegate.
2. Even if they could, the 1945 Act lacks appropriate standards to guide her exercise.
A. The legislature has not extended the state of emergency,
1. Her orders are inconsistent with the 1976 act’s plain text.
2. The Governor’s contrary interpretation would produce absurd results.
3. Her interpretation renders the Legislature’s role in the 1976 act a nullity.
4. Her interpretation defeats a central purpose of the statute: separation of powers.
B. The 1945 Act is only for acute, local emergencies, not indefinite, statewide ones.
1. The plain language of the state indicates as much.
2. Reading the two acts in conjunction confirms. In pari materia, more specific statutes control more general ones, and older statutes yield to newer.
3. Historical context.
4. Constitutional concerns arise if this interpretation is not held.
C. Executive authority does not include the power to legislate, which is what Governor Whitmer is now doing.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
A. Legislative and executive power are separate.
B. Legislative power is exclusively in the hands of the legislature.
C. The Governor is unilaterally making laws.
D. The Governor’s lawmaking violates the separation of powers. Even if the legislature had intended to give legislative power to the governor, it could not constitutionally have done so.
E. The separation of powers is not diminished by crisis.
F. The 1945 Act’s delegation of power cannot save the Governor’s COVID-19 executive orders.
1. Her interpretation of the 1945 act would give her far more legislative power than the legislature could constitutionally delegate.
2. Even if they could, the 1945 Act lacks appropriate standards to guide her exercise.
I. The Governor did not have the authority to issue COVID-19-related orders after April 30.
II. The Governor’s orders violate the separation of powers.
The newest order extends the exemption to those "engaging in or traveling to engage in religious worship at a place of religious worship," and so the plaintiffs have decided to refrain, for now, from serving the Governor (archive).
The local street market is opening tomorrow. I'll start attending it in June.
Iceland Heavy
kiwifarms.net
My county Sheriff just came out calling for the local lockdowns to ease up, they've been taking a very hands-off approach to it this whole time anyway. I'm 
that this means if the local government tries to go full draconian on further lockdowns there'll be no teeth to them.
that this means if the local government tries to go full draconian on further lockdowns there'll be no teeth to them.Similar threads
Rocketlake false cums and craps on the rug.
