excess COVID rules – USA Gov Policy

This article, (Part 1 opened the discussion yesterday on the civil rights implications of some government reactions to COVID) was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by the distinguished Judge John H. Wilson (ret.)

Maybe you have noticed that with the exception of Governor DeWine of Ohio, the vast, overwhelming majority of those governors involved in violating the first amendment rights of their residents are Democrats. We could speculate on the reasons for this – a belief in totalitarianism that usually pervades the left, or an elitist conception that as leaders of society, they inherently know what is best for the rest of us, or even possibly justifiable, yet cynical fears of being blamed politically if the virus causes too many illnesses and deaths “on their watch” – but such speculation is unnecessary. It is a matter of empirical evidence that in most instances, Republican state and local officials are more likely to be protective of individual rights than are Democrats.

To put as fine a point on this proposition as possible, witness recent events in Texas. There, the owner of Salon A in Dallas, Shelley Luther, dared to open her business in violation of the stay at home order of the local Dallas County Commission. Dallas County had extended their order past the deadline set by Governor Greg Abbott (Republican) for reopening businesses across the state of Texas. Ms Luther found herself charged with the violation of that local order. Judge Eric Moye’, who is described by the Dallas News as “a Democrat elected to the 14th District Court in 2008,” issued both a $7,000 fine and a temporary restraining order against Ms Luther. When Ms Luther opened her business anyway, Judge Moye’ demanded she apologize for her “selfishness.” When she refused, Ms Luther was found in contempt, and sentenced to 7 days in jail.

During her refusal to apologize, Ms Luther described her reasons to violate the judge’s order – “I have to disagree with you, sir,” she said, “when you say that I’m selfish because feeding my kids — is not selfish. I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision but I am not going to shut the salon.”

Local Democratic officials were quick to support Judge Moye’. Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia, for instance, said Judge Moye’ was fair, but “he also leans into doing his job.” (Quick aside – when was the last time a Republican was described as “leaning in” to their work? Isn’t that just another way to say, “activist judge?”) But Republican legislators were just as quick to side with Ms Luther. Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated, “I find it outrageous and out of touch that during this national pandemic, a judge … would jail a mother for operating her hair salon in an attempt to put food on her family’s table,” while Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott “issued a statement saying he disagreed ‘with the excessive action‘ by the judge — and suggested that ‘there are less restrictive means’ than jailing Luther while ensuring public safety during the outbreak.”

While discussing Ms Luther’s treatment, Governor Abbott also made a very important point on the Sean Hannity Show – While Ms Luther was incarcerated by a Dallas County judge, “The Dallas County district attorney announced a policy that he is not going to prosecute any thief who steals things valued at less than $750. At the same time, authorities in Dallas are talking about releasing inmates from prison or jail because of the possibility of contracting COVID-19.”

Erectile dysfunction cannot be treated cheapest viagra price within short period of time by studying the California Driver Handbook. Therefore they need to see a doctor or speviagra generic india t. viagra generika view address These tips sound easy, but it takes a lot of work. They want to get rid of this so they are finding an effective medicine. generic levitra australia is actually a branded medicine and it is available from the electronic store wherein the intended client can have according to their choice and being invested a huge capital everyone intends to have installed it through a professional and reputed company whose has the vast experience upon this field and hiring.

The Dallas County District Attorney? John Creuzot – a Democrat.

Within a day of Judge Moye’s order, Ms Luther was freed by order of the Texas Supreme Court. At the same time, Governor Abbott issued another Executive Order removing incarceration as a penalty for violations of social distancing orders, whether his or those issued by local authorities.

We, as citizens and residents of the United States, must be ever vigilant, and ever ready to assert and protect our rights. Like Ms Luther, we must be willing to stand up to petty tyrants and their authoritarian overreaches. In most cases, from the evidence gathered here, one party is more likely to stand with us – the Republican party.

John H. Wilson is a former Criminal Court Judge from New York City. He currently works as a Mediator for First Court.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/