New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday suspended laws that allow open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days after declaring a public health emergency. The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
The order cites recent cases of gun-related violence in and around the city, including the killing of an 11-year-old boy dead and the wounding of a woman in their vehicle in an apparent road rage incident after a baseball game.
Grisham declared that “as I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed. And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game—when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn—something is very wrong.”
Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to a claim used successfully during the pandemic in declaring a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of governors. There have also been calls to declare racism a public health emergency, supported by groups like the American Public Health Association. Transgender programs have also been declared a public health emergency by some groups. The motivation behind many of these calls is not to negate constitutional rights, but the question is whether such declarations allow governors discretion to suspend or curtail individual rights.
As the list of claimed health emergencies grow, even state Democratic judges may begin to balk at the obvious end run around constitutional rights.
The order allows for an expansion to other cities that meet the threshold for violent crime if 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents have occurred per year since 2021. It also sets a threshold of 90 firearms-related emergency room visits per 100,000 residents have occurred between July 2022 and June of this year.
The taking away of individual rights as an emergency measure is hardly new. For centuries, governments have claimed that the suspension of individual rights is necessary for the good of citizens.
What is striking about this effort is the short specified period. By setting a 30-day period, the Governor makes it difficult to secure a final decision. She could face a preliminary injunction in that time. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. In any case, it makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the Supreme Court or even through the federal court system.
Yet, challengers could argue that the matter is not moot when the order can be and is likely to be repeated in the future. That is always a challenging claim to make, but it is clearly true in this case. What is clear is that this is unambiguously and undeniably unconstitutional under existing precedent.
Even if an injunction is secured on the basis of a presumptively unconstitutional act, many will of course celebrate the boldness of Grisham in taking away an individual right under a clever measure. It is, however, too clever by half. If a court decides that this is not moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future such claims.
We have seen how Democratic strongholds have proven the greatest assets for gun-rights advocates.
Major Democratic cities are delivering lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.
In 2008, the District of Columbia brought us District of Columbia v. Heller, the watershed decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of gun possession.
In 2010, Chicago brought us McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court declared that that right is incorporated against state and local government.
However, no state has done more for the Second Amendment than New York. The state has been a fountain of unconstitutional laws — and the basis for a series of wins for Second Amendment advocates.
New Mexico could now prove the next big opportunity for gun rights advocates in tackling the public health rationale for gun control.
An absolute outrage. Sounds familiar.
In fashion for every iteration of the left.
Democrats have decided that there’s no accountability for them, so why not?
This just in. Governor Ron DeSantis decreed an emergency and has banned all abortions for 30 days in Dade County.
Now imagine the media!
Jonathan: I missed another important bit of news this week–the release of the Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury Report. And it was stunning!
The Report shows the SPGJ recommended charging 20 other people in connection with the attempts by DJT to overturn the 2020 election. Included were Sen. Lindsey Graham, 20 two former GOP senators, former DJT campaign attorney Cleta Mitchell, DJT’s personal advisor Boris Epshteyn, another DJT attorney L Lin Wood—even others like Michael Flynn and some of the other fake electors.
Why didn’t Fani Willis charge Graham and the others? In the case of Graham he would have claim the “speech and debate” clause as a defense. That would have raised all sorts of issues that could have been appealed all the way to the SC–and slowed down the process of “speedy” trials. We know this because Graham fought a subpoena from the Fulton County SPGJ to testify. Graham fought the subpoena including an appeal to the SC. He lost and was forced to testify before the SPGJ back in November of last year. Willis knew Graham would try the same stunt if she indicted him. So she decided to avoid those pitfalls to avoid any delays in the trials. Willis also probably decided she already had a tight case against DJT and the other 18 defendants and adding another 20 would have slowed down the process. It’s called “prosecutorial discretion”.
The Q is whether Lindsey Graham is out of the woods? Not quite. Willis could later issue a superseding indictment to include Graham and some of the others. So, sorry Lindsey, you’re not home free yet!
Awww Denise,
You really need to read the room.
The jury wanted them… the prosecution didn’t because she knew that it would tank her entire case against Trump.
It would have been a bridge to far so to speak.
Lindsey is home free. Considering he’s a Senator… maybe if you read the constitution on the election process he has the ability to question anything since he gets to vote on the electors…
-G
In other news, jonathan, coco gauff won the us open. Which probably has as much significance as Fani’s “special” grand jury. They’re special, Fani is special, they all ride the special bus with Dennis. Back to your issue of Vogue, Denny!
“It’s called “prosecutorial discretion”.”
Tomorrow, our resident genius, Dennis McInlyre will explain to Jonathan Turley what habeas corpus means.
Ian Michael Gumby: Awww Michelle, you really need to catch up on your criminal and constitutional law. It wasn’t a “jury” that wanted Lindsey Graham charged. It was a Special Grand Jury. Do you even know how grand juries work under Georgia law–the difference between a SGJ and a regular Grand Jury?
Now you bizarrely say “maybe if you read the constitution on the election process he [Graham] has the ability to question anything since he gets to vote on the electors…” Nope. If you look at the SGJ Report it shows Graham made repeated calls to Brad Raffensperger and members of his staff to try to get them to toss out mail-in ballots. He did the same thing in Arizona and Nevada. That’s illegal interference in a state’s right to count their own ballots. A sitting Senator has no authority to intervene in a state election. His only role is to vote in the Electoral College certification of the electoral count. That doesn’t confer the right of a Senator to “question anything”. That’s why the Fulton County SGJ recommended Graham also be charged. You really need to gets the facts and law straight before you opine on subjects you know nothing about!
@Dennis McIntyre
1. Wow!!!!!! “Fani Willis” declares she will not discuss her investigation with anyone BUT she is sharing her reasoning with you??
2. ““speedy” trials” is the right of the defendant, not the prerogative of the prosecutor.
3. So are you saying that “Fani Willis” is POSSIBLY letting criminals off the hook so she can pursue a speedy trial? Why? Did she tell you why she was doing that?
4. “Fani Willis” may (“could later issue a superseding indictment”) or may not go after people that the “SPGJ” thought were criminals based on the evidence she presented. But she just did not want to spend time on them now? Now, in the interest of justice, did she tell you why she would do that?
I think you are giving us an insight of what you view as justice, Dennis!
Ex Dem: Just for the record Fani Willis hasn’t shared her “reasoning” with me. I based my informed judgment on my own legal experience and the opinions of many former federal and state prosecutors–even some who have worked with Willis. I am on several other legal blogs and it is that consensus that informed my opinions.
You are confusing decisions on who to charge with the right to a “speedy trial”. Prosecutors have “prosecutorial discretion” to charge some but not all the co-conspirators in a RICO indictment. Some potential defendants are less culpable than others. And some of the other 20 the SGJ recommended to be charged were the fake electors. Some may be cooperating with Fani Willis so she has not charged them. A normal process in making charging decisions. While the right to a “speedy trial” resides principally with the defendant, it is also the right of the public to know the guilt or innocence of a defendant–especially when it involves public figures–like DJT.
This is how the justice system works. If you have an alternative view of Fani Willis’s “reasoning” let’s hear it. Otherwise, you are just opining on subjects you know nothing about!
@Dennis McIntyre
Are you of the belief that you are having a private conversation with JT here on this blog?
Are you of the belief that you are some type of ‘cub reporter’ for JT’s site such that you can just bring up news items you think are worthy from your point of view?
Are you of the belief that life is some sort of game measured in innings or quarters wherein you can judge what a good week or a “bad week” it was?
As you plod thru the news releases, keep this saying in mind: It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
The extraordinary effort of Democrats to stop Trump from running for president, and to stop millions of voters from voting for him, is the true threat to democracy. Democrats trying to stop Trump is like Tanya Harding trying to stop Nancy Kerrigan. It is villainous how they use every trick up their sleeves. Just let the man run, let democracy run its course, and may the best man win.
Democrats trying to stop Trump is like Tanya Harding trying to stop Nancy Kerrigan.
+1000
Why shouildn’t Brandon be removed dfrom office for aiding and comforting the Taliban?
According to the DOJ, all Real President Donald J. Trump has to do is win, placing the communistic affirmative action beneficiary, Willis, soundly on her Fanny!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”
Date of Issuance:
October 16, 2000
Headnotes
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
Is Fanny Willis attempting to have James Comey’s “…impact on the election?”
_______________________________________________________________
“This was terrible. It makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election.”
FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy for President, 2016
This should be brought to Federal court immediately for a TRO. That should be obtainable within 30 days.
More generally, consideration needs to be given to the constitutionality of grants of broad emergency powers to state and Federal executive officers enabling them to suspend the normal operation of law, including but not limited to constitutional rights. These powers were abused during the Covid “emergency” and if not checked will be abused again on health, racism, climate change or other grounds.
Given today’s means of travel and communications, there are few genuine emergencies, in the sense of events that prevent legislatures from deciding on what to do. Whether it’s courts or legislatures that act, it is high time for executives to be stripped of general emergency powers.
Daniel – agreed. The concept of an emergency was used in a past era to justify forcing Japanese Americans into internment camps. In one of its most disgraceful rulings, SCOTUS upheld the internments. See Korematsu v. U.S. (1944). That ruling has since been repudiated. See Trump v. Hawaii (2018). There’s an anonymous commenter below who I’ve been debating, who is relying exclusively on Korematsu to justify the governor’s actions in this case.
And I pointed out that Korematsu was illegitimate authority, and asked you for some legitimate authority. To my knowledge you have not supplied any authority besides Korematsu. That means I am correct to say you’re relying on it exclusively. If you did supply some legitimate authority, and somehow I missed it, kindly identify it.
I asked you what legal authority you were basing your position on. You gave me illegitimate authority. I now ask you again, regardless of what was said before, can you point to any legitimate authority to support the position that constitutional rights may be suspended for 30 days? You’ve had all day and failed to do so, opting instead to quibble about the exact way I phrased my previous request. So I conclude you are unable to find any such legitimate authority. Enjoy your evening.
OMFK, Korematsu was based on Hirabayashi, which found that Congress knew of and authorised the planned ancestry-based curfew and evacuation orders when it passed the law that criminalised Korematsu and Hirabayashi’s conduct. The question at issue was whether, acting together pursuant to their war powers, Congress and the President could authorise military commanders to adopt ancestry-based measures to protect against espionage, and sabotage against critical military facilities, in areas threatened by possible imminent invasion. So this was not seen as a case of the executive acting alone through a general delegation of unspecified emergency powers in one area or another, but joint action by Congress and the executive in the exercise of their combined war powers to authorise the military to take highly specific measures to counter an identified perceived threat following a devastating surprise attack.
Whatever you think of the court’s decision, the context bears no resemblance to Lujan’s unilateral action to strip away clear constitutional rights in response to a crime.
Don’t get me wrong here. I am not saying that the legislature could constitutionally grant the governor the right to take this type of action in response to a crime. As interpreted by the court, the 2nd amendment would prevent that. But I do believe that tightening the vast range of emergency powers that executive officers now appear to have is essential if abuses are to be curtailed.
I agree and believe it will have to be done state by state. As an example in Pennsylvania the Democrat governor, during Covid, used an emergency declaration to act like a dictator and bankrupt thousands of small businesses in the state. After the state supreme court upheld the action on a 4-3 vote, the state legislature, then GOP-controlled, passed a few state constitutional amendments to ensure that doesn’t happen again.
Turley points this out and that this also won’t be moot afterwards.
Watch this go to SCOTUS if it doesn’t die in Federal court first.
Like all of the AWB laws that are unconstitutional, when it gets to SCOTUS… it works in gun owners favor.
The wild thing is if you look at her comments when interviewed by the press. This will only take guns away from legal gun owners.
The Governor should be impeached for blatant abuse of Nevada citizen’s constitutional rights.
Same for the other libtard Governors willing to violate their oath of office.
-G
Please correct me if I’m wrong (as if I needed to ask, he mumble under his breath). The challenge would only be moot if it was a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the Governor’s unilateral action, i.e., suspending a constitutional right. However, it couldn’t be moot in the case of someone challenging their arrest if they violated the Governor’s unilateral order. If the order is unlawful, then a defended arrested under that order is entitled to argue the constitutionality of that order in their defense regardless of whether the order was suspended after thirty minutes, thirty days or 30 weeks. So how is the potential “mootness” issue an overriding concern here?
Also, don’t the State and US Supreme courts have the ability/obligation to directly rule on the constitutionality of an “obviously” unlawful order from the executive? (I’m at a bit of a disadvantage here since I’m operating out side the US). For example, if a Governor issued an emergency order that required all state troopers to shoot on sight anyone (other than another state trooper) in possession of a firearm wouldn’t the Supremes have an obligation to make a unilateral ruling at once?
Jibberjabber – you make a good point. If the state prosecutes someone for violating a temporary order, the prosecution lives on beyond the order’s expiration, so it is not moot so long as the state refuses to drop charges.
On your second question, under Article III of the US Constitution, federal courts, including SCOTUS, lack the power to intervene of their own accord. They have to wait till a litigant brings a case to them before they can make any ruling on the validity of the law.
Thank you Oldman – so neither the several state SCs nor SCOTUS can unilaterally initiate a Judicial Review? Rather some third party (presumably with standing) must petition said courts for a JR (no later than 30 days post EO or legislation as I read the convention). And presumably it’s at the discretion of the courts whether or not they accept the petition. So, can the petitioner petition the SCs initially or must they go through the lower courts first?
JibberJabber – there are several questions in there. SCOTUS cannot unilaterally review a law, they have to wait for someone to bring a challenge. It may be different with state supreme courts, the rules for which depend on the particular state constitution and statutory laws, which differ all over the place. As for whether a petition can go directly to a state supreme court, usually I believe the answer is yes, but that court has discretion whether to take the case or not, since it was not first brought in a trial court. If they go to the trial court first, that court has to decide the issue, then the losing side usually gets one appeal as of right. In a big enough state that will be to an intermediate appellate court, then after that the state supreme court has discretion whether to allow a further appeal. But they usually do allow it in a case with major constitutional implications. If I haven’t answer all your questions please let me know.
Crime in Albuquerque is an emergency.
Have you heard of martial law, like in that movie Under Siege starring Bruce Willis? Albaquerque needs martial law so that people can be safe, with soldiers being able to punish those who act disorderly!
Martial law can only exist in the USA when and where the courts are unable to function. The moment a court opens its doors, any martial law order in that area becomes void and illegal.
How are courts functioning if the muggings and gang shootings keep happening in Albaqurque?
They clearly are functioning. Nobody even tries to dispute that, and you can easily verify it yourself simply by traveling to Albuquerque and visiting a courthouse. You will see that the doors are open and the courts are sitting. That is enough to make martial law illegal.
@ZCury
No, Crime is not an emergency and no she didn’t declare martial law.
She declared it a health emergency.
She violated her citizen’s constitutional rights for no good reason.
She’s saying certain things in a way to deflect any potential criminal and civil charges against her.
If you can prove that she’s knowingly violating their civil rights… she would be open to at a minimum civil lawsuits w no qualified immunity.
She should’ve declared martial law!
She CAN’T declare martial law.
A fictional movie or reality?
Which do you live in?
Want people to be safe? Crack down on criminals. Not law abiding citizens and infringing on their rights.
Martial law will enable to Army to crack down on criminals.
No, it won’t, because it’s illegal. Any soldier who acted on a purported declaration of martial law would be a criminal, and would be sent to prison. No qualified immunity, because this is a firmly established law.
Agreed. Also, the governor should then be impeached by default for infringing on a constitutional law and attempting to break a law.
Albuqurque needs martial law like that bruce Willis m ovie Under Siege.
Movies are fiction. Or did you not know that?
There’s no such thing as “impeached by default”. Impeachment belongs to the legislature, and the NM legislature is controlled by the Democrat Party, so there is no possibility that she will be impeached, no matter how much she may deserve it.
Explain the rationality please:
1. “The state with the 2nd highest crime rate in the country is New Mexico” AND “The majority of New Mexico’s gun problems involve suicide.” So how will Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s address “public health emergency” as it relates to suicide…apparently NM’s biggest gun related problem? Those people will still have guns at home.
2. How will Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the citizens of NM be able to assess the effectiveness that justifies her “public health emergency” order? The methods should be stated BEFORE any order is given when taking ANY action let alone suspension of constitutional rights.
3. “Temporarily suspending” ANY right is constitutional “because it’s only temporary”?
4. “No right is ever absolute.” is an observation, not a justification.
5. “The constitution does not prohibit the regulation of firearms or how they can be used.” Correct. But that absence does not mean that “regulations” can be instituted that otherwise violate the Constitution or degrade the right to bear arms.
6. “Based on the order people still get to keep their weapons. They just can’t take them out of the home for 30 days”. In “SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.”, one of the opinions stated: “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand- gun for self-defense outside the home.”. No mention of 30 seconds, 30 hours or 30 days.
7. “law abiding” gun owners will defy the law nevertheless. Are they still law abiding when they defy it?” Can an governor’s “order” that is clearly unconstitutional be called a “law”? And if the order it is unconstitutional and without a stated method of defining the purpose and success within a 30 day period can it even be considered a lawfully legitimate order? And it an order is not lawfully legitimate, who is the real criminal?
Interesting discussion. Are gun owners still “law abiding” if they defy a law–even a temporary, “emergency” law–prohibiting or restricting their ownership and use of a gun? Nope, they are no longer literally “law abiding.” But, as many have noted over the centuries, including many of the founders, there is a world of difference between being a good citizen (aka, “law abiding”) and being a good person, a distinction that is the very essence of civil disobedience. Who’s right, the person who follows the law, or the person who follows their conscience?
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by A SCRUPULOUS ADHERENCE TO WRITTEN LAW, WOULD BE TO LOSE THE LAW ITSELF, [Emphasis added] with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson. Letter to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810
I think I’m with Jefferson on this one. Laws are the product of people–imperfect people–not holy writ.
No one is under any legal obligation to obey or comply with an order or law that blatantly violates both state and federal constitutions. There is no need for a court or judge to determine what is plain English.
If the guv had issued an order that nobody is allowed to attend a worship service for 30 days, would someone who defied that edict also be a mere vigilante?
Defying it, technically would not make anyone a law abiding citizen. I’m not saying it’s wrong. Just pointing out that factually and legally it’s still violating the law.
Okay, so your point is that the person is a vigilante, but you’re also saying sometimes that’s a good thing? So . . . Rosa Parks was a vigilante for refusing to sit at the back of the bus, but that was a good thing, right?
So your whole point is about the correct label, and not whether it’s right or wrong, good or bad?
P.S. I disagree with the label (since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law violating it is not a law at all).
Not anarchist, which would be not recognizing the legitimacy of any government.
Rather, recognizing the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and obeying that. Where an inferior law conflicts with the Constitution, that inferior law is invalid and the Constitution is the law that still must be obeyed.
Look at speed limits . . . if a cop clocked you going 1mph over the limit. He can legally pull you over and issue you a ticket for violating the speed limit . . . I know it’s silly and stupid. BUT it’s still a violation nevertheless.
That’s not really on point, because the argument there would be that that particular speed limit is unwise, not that it’s unconstitutional. Here, we’re talking about laws that violate the constitution.
“Yes. Because it’s still defying a law that hasn’t been deemed illegal by a court. Until then according to the law it would be a violation of it.”
But the governor’s edict is not a “law”. A law is a statute that has been passed by the state legislature and THEN signed by the governor.
@cfofthewoods, @Old Man…
Uhm… ok.. sorry to jump in…
The Governor declared an emergency and her order has the power of being the law. Violating the order comes with penalties.
You do not get the choice of picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore.
Until its overturned or expires… its unfortunately the law.
The danger is that she can declare this at any time, or other Governors can do this or similar things… they have the power to limit your rights during the emergency. If anything can be declared an emergency… it becomes an abuse of power.
-G
Ian, I appreciate what you’re saying but I see it differently. An invalid law is a nullity masquerading as a law. A judge’s ruling to that effect strips off its disguise, but what it has been all along is merely revealed, not changed.
No, that makes me a Constitutionalist. What if your state or local government passed a law restricting freedom of speech? Would you obey and wait for a court to sort it out, or would you dismiss it on it’s face? Yes, we are a nation of laws, and not men, but ultimately we are governed by our Constitution, not a series of governors, presidents, courts and judges.
Despite claims to the contrary, government on any level can’t do whatever it damn well pleases so long as it comes in the form of a declaration, or a 51% vote.
Just because some government official makes an edict does not obligate me to comply. We have representatives, not rulers.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Then what’s the point of having laws if you’re not goin to obey them.
The supreme law that must be obeyed is the Constitution. We should definitely obey that. If a person holding elective office issues a law that violates the constitution, then refusing to obey that law is in fact being law-abiding. Since again, the unconstitutional law is a nullity, it is no law at all.
That was my point. An obviously Unconstitutional law or order is null and void on it’s face.just as it has been ruled that you cannot be convicted of resisting an unlawful arrest.
You say we should obey the constitution. The constitution gives state legislatures and congress the power to create laws.
True, but not unlimited power. The constitution does not give state legislatures and congress the power to create laws that violate other parts of the constitution, otherwise every single law they create would always be constitution, and we know that’s not true.
When that law has NOT been determined by a court to be unconstitutional it’s still valid law and must be obeyed. Until a court finds that the law is indeed unconstitutional THEN you can justify disobeying it.
Although I disagree I can see there’s a certain logic to what you’re saying. But let me ask you this: suppose you were convicted under a law you believed to be unconstitutional, and fined $100,000. Two years later the state supreme court rules the law unconstitutional. Does the state have to give you your $100,000 back? After all, at the time you disobeyed the law, no court had yet declared it constitutional.
I have been considering that for some time, and I believe the philosophy that most closely fits to my views is Anarchist-Capitalist as defined by Murray Rothbard. I say only closely because I do think the US Constitution is the best document conceived so far to govern men, whereas a pure Anarchist would disregard it as well. It has been a long evolution for me. I started off in my late teens as a rather traditional Reagan Conservative. Over the years I have passed through libertarianism (classic, not the political party) and finally into AnCap.
I do believe we have a moral obligation to disobey rules or laws that violate or abridge our Constitutionally protected Rights much like the Freedom Riders did in the South. Sometimes we have to lead the rebellion, not wait for a possible vindication in a courtroom.
Illegal orders force the ordered to make the order null, in the face of the authority giving it. The ordered become the authority when enforcing the law by refusing that illegal order. The orderers are then the criminals, and the authority once possessed is completely relinquished. This transposition is just and required.
Then the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member go to the jail- or the morgue.
Here is a scenario that I believe is very possible. The first order will be allowed to expire and a new order will be issued two days later. This scheme will never allow enough time to challenge the order. No surprise here. It’s what they always do to limit the Constitutional rights of the American people. Watch for other blue States to do the same thing.
This is the dumbest comment I’ve ever read. The Governor’s ENTIRE JOB is protect individuals rights…. Neither she nor fools like you can suspend those rights even temporarily.
If you are a failure and cannot guarantee citizens rights… then you must resign.
ELECTED OFFICIALS NEVER HAVE THE OPTION TO DENY RIGTHS. It’s literally the only reason they are elected.
This doesn;t go far enough!
She should have suspended the whole Bill of Civil Rights, allowed the cops to search people and places if they felt like it, allowed cops to indefinitely detain people.
Remembeer back in 1994 when the Chicago cops had enough of gun violence and searched the projects in the ghetto without a warrant? It was outrageous that the judge put mUh CiViL rIgHtS over rthe lives of dead kids!
A defund the police advocate in Minneapolis was attacked in her driveway and beaten while her neighbors were held at gunpoint to prevent them coming to her aid. Her first instinct was to blame guns. Some people simply cannot learn. I love New Mexico, but New Mexican Democrats are part of that can’t-learn population.
Temporarily suspending open carry laws does seem to be constitutional because it’s only temporary.
Interesting theory. Temporary suspension of constitutional rights are okay because they’re temporary. Do you have any legal authority to support your theory, or is that just off the top of your head?
The Constitution says the right cannot be “infringed,” and admittedly it can be regulated to some extent. But here’s the question: is suspending the right for 30 days an infringement or merely a legally valid regulation? Just pronouncing it a valid regulation doesn’t make it so. Kindly inform us of how you come to that conclusion, and what authority supports it?
The Supreme Court’s decision in that regard, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), has been repudiated by the Supreme Court. See Trump v. Hawaii (2018). It therefore is no longer valid precedent.
Do you have another source?
So an erroneous decision was on the books for 74 years. It is still erroneous.
And it was the one of the most hated, egregious, and sharply criticized decisions in American history – hated and criticized by virtually the entire political spectrum. Relying on Korematsu was exceedingly weak even before it was overruled. You need a better source.
The point is still that your rights are not absolute.
Agreed.
They can be temporarily suspended anytime.
That doesn’t follow from the premise (that one’s rights are not absolute). I’m asking for legitimate authority that would support that assertion. So far you have only supplied illegitimate authority (Korematsu). Not only has Korematsu been repudiated, I don’t believe it was ever relied on as precedent for any other situation – most likely because everyone knew it was wrong.
As for the analogy to free speech: a better example would be if the governor had suspended the freedom to engage in political speech in public for 30 days. How would that kind of restriction be constitutionally valid?
How is what you’re saying any different than if I said:
Plessy v Ferguson (1896) wasn’t illegitimate when it was enforced by the Supreme Court in 1896. The rights of African Americans were indeed taken away. Both Texas and the Supreme Court in 1896 could and did take citizens rights under the guise of “separate but equal.”
It took 58 years to repudiate that decision. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen again with other rights. Supermajority Supreme Court be it liberal or conservative can do it again.
Now suppose the Governor of New Mexico issued an edict that all public schools in New Mexico must be segregated by race, relying on Plessy as support. Would the fact that it was on the books for 58 years make it legitimate authority in that circumstance?
It would be constitutional if they created a “zone where you could exercise political speech”. Just like it happened during the Bush years. It’s still constitutional.
What are you referring to, how could that be constitutional, and how does it relate to a suspension of constitutional rights for 30 days, which I thought was the topic.?
Note that Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for a similar length of time before it was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education. What would think about a governor who, by executive order, mandated racially segregated public schools and public pools, and then relied on Plessy for support? That’s essentially what you’re doing.
Realistically it can be considered a partial infringement.
That’s an argument I would have made. A partial infringement is still a type of infringement, prohibited by 2A. I think what you mean is that it’s an acceptable regulation, like the other regulations you point to. I hope these types of temporary bans continue so their validity can ultimately be decided by SCOTUS. And consistent with what the professor suggests, I believe SCOTUS would find that they qualify for an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are likely to be repeated while evading review.
The right to free speech is similarly limited.
The right to free speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations, such as the ones you point to. And certainly 2A rights are subject to some types of regulation (as I said before). But the interesting question here is whether a 30-day suspension qualifies as such.
Then we should let the courts figure it out and go from there.
People say that about laws they like. When they don’t like a law, they say we should resist. For example, are you saying the entire Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s in the south should not have committed civil disobedience. So Martin Luther King was wrong to resist racial segregation, so Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus until “the courts figured it out”?
Your a communist troll! Go back to Cuba or China or wherever it is that taught and trained you to be a demonic sheep!
Interesting. Who is law abiding? When the government makes an unconstitutional law, is it law-abiding to follow it? I’d say anyone who resists it is law abiding because an unconstitutional law is no law at all, it is invalid and thus a nullity. Accord Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).
But in the twilight zone between the time the law is passed and a court declares it unconstitutional, what is its status? To me that’s an interesting question, but I’d argue its status is that it is invalid and no law at all. The person who defies that law will either be vindicated or not, but if vindicated, that vindication applies retroactively to the time of the defiance. Change my mind.
It can only be invalid when a court of law says so.
False. If a court says it’s invalid, then it was invalid from the moment of its inception. As I noted below, people say we should obey questionable laws when they like the law, and they say we should resist when they dislike the law. The law that required Rosa Parks to sit at the back of the bus was invalid even before Brown v. Board of Education was decided. The Brown case recognized their invalidity, but the invalidity didn’t start at that moment, it started when the law was passed.
That’s not how it works.
That is too how it works. In SCOTUS’s words: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.“. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
In legalese, the law is void ab initio, that is, void from the moment it was passed.
Do a little thought experiment: suppose the state passes a law saying: you may not speak in favor of the election of any Democrat candidate for any elective office. Clearly unconstitutional, right? Now suppose you defied that and were prosecuted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Now suppose you challenge the law, and the court agrees it’s unconstitutional. But your sentence has already been issued. So now you have to spend 10 years in jail just because at the moment you broke the law, the court had not yet declared it unconstitutional?
@Old Man,
You’re pissing into the wind.
Anonymous has it correct.
Until the courts say its unconstitutional or issues a TRO , its the law.
While everyone here (well anyone with a brain) agrees that this is unconstitutional, it will take a judge to rule it so. Until then… it stands.
It sucks and that’s part of Turley’s point.
The gun grabbing libtards are outsmarting themselves.
Please reread his article.
-G
Immediately folks need to strap on and step out! E masse! Take the arrest, then file a billion dollar law suit for constitutional civil rights violations. The awards will bankrupt the government of the State. DO NOT ACQUIESCE!! This is a true matter of stand or fall as a country. These “governors” are doing what they know is illegal and will not stand up in court, but it gives them a short term victory and power for next time. Our POS in Washington state is doing this constantly. Him and his puppet AG Ferguson. It needs to stop! What is wrong with American men?
Because people cannot be trusted to self-moderate, there is pride and progress.
Make no mistake: the Lujans are a dynasty not unlike the Bidens. I hope she finally gets the book thrown at her for this, but it’s the modern dem M.O. again; violate the Constitution but on a small enough scale to avoid retribution (covid tyranny was global and therefore exceptional, that made it easier, and on its heels we have trans and climate tyranny). Everything that has been said in these comments is 100% accurate about Michelle. Fortunately, she can’t run again. Unfortunately, she spent most of the lockdown in DC, issuing orders when she wasn’t even in her state, and DC is likely where she’s headed, just like Deb Haaland, who was equally absurd on a local level, or Bill Richardson, who I’m sorry to tell you, was a total crook.
People here often ask, how anyone could be this blind to their rights being violated? You are projecting your own values. The majority of Americans really are that profoundly ignorant/uncaring/oblivious, particularly in a state where the drugs, legal and otherwise, flow like water and schools have nearly always been bottom of the barrel. Trust me, NM dem voters positively *beg* for the likes of Lujan and Haaland, and the elites there rub elbows out in the open. What is happening everywhere now happened there in microcosm first, and in some cases, decades ago.
If this or covid times aren’t the future you want, stand up now, but again: I have talked with people in NM in their 80s whose political acumen is about that of a twelve year-old, that often extends to more general knowledge, and they are not rare anywhere in America anymore. A whole lotta people have blindly gone along with the DNC out of perceived morality even though it’s the party that murdered JFK for undoing the Jim Crowe laws their party created in the first place.
The “dynasty” problem is real and typical of Democrats and RINOs. They play on the ignorance and dependency of their base. Little wonder the clans give lip service to education but pour $ into it as their real purpose is to keep their union teacher stooges on the dole and turn out generation after generation of poorly educated kids that will remain on the government dole out of loyalty (read dependency), How else would you justify the pouring of massive amounts of $ into public schools the do worse nationally nearly every year?
Look at the last 70 years: Kennedys, Clintons, Bushs, Sununus, etc and their spinoffs Biden and Pelosi. All mediocre at best for other than keeping people down and keeping them on the dole. Yet, the greatest mirage that the Democrats (with RINO support) have been able to project is that “the Democrats are for the common man’. Baloney. The Democrats are for KEEPING you the ‘common man’.
When in God’s name are you going to learn about putting women in positions of authority? It’s not that they think less well; it’s that they think at all.
@PFesser
That isn’t the kind of funny you imagined it to be. Not cool.
Jonathan: There were some important developments this week in cases surrounding DJT’s unlawful attempts to overturn the 2020 election you missed. So permit me to bring everyone up to date:
1. Peter Navarro was found guilty on two counts of contempt for refusing to testify before the Jan. 6 House Committee. He is facing up to 2 yrs in prison. He says he will appeal. That appeal will fail. Seems a lot of people in DJT’s orbit believed they were above the law. Navarro’s conviction proves otherwise.
2. Down in Fulton County and Fani Willis’s RICO case, Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro lost their bids to be tried separately. In the first live TV coverage of a hearing before Judge McAfee involving their claims Chesebro’s attorneys argued that their client “never met Powell, never had any email exchanges with her” and should be tried separately. McAfee was not persuaded because under Georgia’s RICO law each and every defendant is equally liable for the unlawful acts of other co-conspirators. So Powell and Chesebro will get their “speedy trial” It starts on 10/23/24. Note: All the hearings and trials will be televised live on You Tube. A must watch!
3. In a related Fulton County case, Mark Meadows lost his bid to get his case removed to federal court. Federal Judge Jones ruled: “Meadow’s participation on the Jan. 2, 2021, call was political in nature and involved the President’s private litigation, neither of which are related to the scope of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff…”.
In sum, it was a bad week for DJT and his co-conspirators.
@Dennis
I usually scroll past the foolishness, but you can stuff it on this one. My family goes back a loooong time in that state and you are absolutely, unequivocally talking out of your back side this time. Pfft.
“first intelligent black woman in a courtroom”—Dennis McInlyre
Dennis…was this statement racist or anti-racist?
I see Dennis has taken to posting on the weekends to avoid the ridicule of Dick Head. You can run but you cant hide Dennis.
“Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro lost their bids to be tried separately.”
I thought all 19 were gonna be tried together, Dennis? Glad u have the pulse of Fani. She “don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout all that computer stuff”, but she is a brilliant example of affirmative action, huh Denni?
Thats why she finished 258 out of 263 in her law school class.
Meanwhile, the really IMPORTANT THING HAPPENING IN FULTON COUNTY—6 homicides last weekend.
This is one of the most thoughtful responses to the above post regarding the governor of New Mexico’s action.
Fulton County neighbor here. If you think any decision coming out of Fulton County has anything to do with law or Justice then you’re as seriously deluded as the idiots that approved Willis on the single issue of “get Trump.”
if a resident of Albuquerque has the “individual right” to tote and kill an 11 yr old boy
Nobody has that right. What on earth are you talking about?
Also, your logic is especially lousy. First, you start with a false assumption that barring law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms is likely to prevent violence. Second, you equate a right expressly protected by the text of the Constitution, with the supposed constitutional right to abortion, which does not exist. The Second Amendment’s text is all about the right to keep and bear arms, whereas there is no text in the Constitution that expressly or impliedly confers or protects the right to kill fetuses. The Constitution leaves that up to the states, as the Dobbs decision correctly recognizes.
^^ Reply to Dennis, must have typed it into the wrong box ^^
OldManFromKS,
A well thought out reply to Dennis moronic one.
Upstate – thanks, usually I scroll past Dennis because his logic is consistently deeply flawed, but this time he kept it short and, alas, curiosity got the best of me.
The fact is, civil rights laws ties the hands of cops.
How much safer would we be if cops could just silence, disarm, search, judge, and punish the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member whenever they felt like it, however they saw fit?
Why do we want to tie their hands?
What on earth are you talking about?
🤡
Yet, challengers could argue that the matter is not moot when the order can be and is likely to be repeated in the future.
Agreed. With each occurrence of these short-term suspensions of constitutional rights, it becomes harder and harder for the defendant to claim mootness.
(Nit pick: they are still moot, but could qualify for an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are likely to be repeated while evading review.)
(Also: in state courts it is often easier to evade mootness since those courts are not bound by the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.)