Unless the constitutions have been over thrown by the federal gov or some other unknown power, even a vote of the people cannot, even by amendment, grant the legislature unlimited law making powers. This is not Germany.
There is no clause in any state constitution that allows a state to suspend due process except if the state is being mi…
Unless the constitutions have been over thrown by the federal gov or some other unknown power, even a vote of the people cannot, even by amendment, grant the legislature unlimited law making powers. This is not Germany.
There is no clause in any state constitution that allows a state to suspend due process except if the state is being militarily invaded. This even applies to so called medical emergencies. While a person proven to be a health threat might be able to be force-ably quarantined, there is no provision to detain a healthy person on the mere suspicion that they might be harboring an illness. Even proof they have been around an unhealthy person would not grant the state the power to quarantine them against their will.
Due to this, if someone challenges the governor to prove they have the constitutional authority to enforce this statute or even to allow it to be enforced, the governor would default because they have no such power.
While the governor is tasked with seeing that all laws are faithfully executed, they are not granted the power to allow laws to be executed that that cannot be proven to be constitutional.
Forced jabbing: No state constitution grants any state or any agency of it the power to impose a medical treatment upon their civilian population. Especially an experimental treatment that is killing and disabling many that take it. The state has no power to make you play a game of medical Russian roulette with your life - even if the state thinks it might be a good idea.
The citizens have the right to demand, in writing, that the governor prove, in writing, these actions are constitutional. When the governor fails, the people have the power to go to court and get an injunction against enforcement on the ground that the state has failed to prove enforcement is constitutional.
As citizens, you are claiming that you have the right not to be subjected to these rules because no such power is granted to the state. When the state, via its representative, the governor, fails to prove you wrong on the record, an honest court is required to protect you from enforcement upon petition.
The statement to the courts would be: We [ make it well publicized so the judge knows there are a lot of eyes on him ] cannot find in the state constitution where the power is granted to the state to impose these rules and mandates upon us. We therefore deny the power exists. We have challenged the governor to prove they have the constitutional authority to impose said regulations. The governor has been unable or at least unwilling to provide proof of the authority to enforce said rules and mandates.
The rule of authority is that where the power of the gov to act is not clearly stated or necessarily implied by what is stated in the relevant constitution, the power of the gov to act is forbidden.
Further, that when the gov is challenged to prove they have the constitutional power to act and they cannot or will not, the power is deemed not to exist.
Therefore, the question before the court is: Is the state constitution binding upon the legislature and governor? The obvious answer would be yes, unless the state constitution has been over thrown and Washington is an admittedly communist state where in all rights have been abolished.
Can the governor allow enforcement of laws and mandates that they cannot or will not prove to be constitutional? The clear answer is no, unless the Washington constitution has been over thrown and all rights have been abolished.
The questions must be concise and leave no room for interpretation or opinion
Remember, the judge can only rule on the evidence before him. If he did know that the Washington constitution allowed the proposed actions, he cannot enter that into the record. It is the responsibility of the the state's representative, such as the state AG, to enter such evidence.
If the judge does know that no such power exists on behalf of the gov, he cannot allow the rights of the people to be violated and he has a duty to rule on behalf of the people
If no proof of authority to act is entered into the record, for the judge to rule against the people to be free of the enforcement of the mandates would be a statement that somehow the Washington constitution and the rights it secures has have been over thrown.
The question then becomes: When and by whom?
Suggestion: Organize and petition your local sheriffs to take this task on, on behalf of the people of their counties. This is one of their constitutional duties - to protect the rights of those they were elected to serve.
A mayor has some resources and a state legislature that is against the mandates would seem to have the power, acting in an official capacity, to use all resources at their disposal to make the gov proven its actions are constitutional.
There is a retired sheriff who has started a movement to involve local sheriffs in such an action and to educate them on their constitutional duty - https://cspoa.org/
I've contacted them with a short post. I have yet to receive a reply. It appears they have a different agenda and in regard to actually protecting rights, they are all talk.
I made contact with an Oregon sheriff that claims to be against the lock downs, but is not interested in doing anything about it. I contacted a sheriff in LA country that has complained loudly, but when offered help - I get no reply.
Unless the constitutions have been over thrown by the federal gov or some other unknown power, even a vote of the people cannot, even by amendment, grant the legislature unlimited law making powers. This is not Germany.
There is no clause in any state constitution that allows a state to suspend due process except if the state is being militarily invaded. This even applies to so called medical emergencies. While a person proven to be a health threat might be able to be force-ably quarantined, there is no provision to detain a healthy person on the mere suspicion that they might be harboring an illness. Even proof they have been around an unhealthy person would not grant the state the power to quarantine them against their will.
Due to this, if someone challenges the governor to prove they have the constitutional authority to enforce this statute or even to allow it to be enforced, the governor would default because they have no such power.
While the governor is tasked with seeing that all laws are faithfully executed, they are not granted the power to allow laws to be executed that that cannot be proven to be constitutional.
Forced jabbing: No state constitution grants any state or any agency of it the power to impose a medical treatment upon their civilian population. Especially an experimental treatment that is killing and disabling many that take it. The state has no power to make you play a game of medical Russian roulette with your life - even if the state thinks it might be a good idea.
The citizens have the right to demand, in writing, that the governor prove, in writing, these actions are constitutional. When the governor fails, the people have the power to go to court and get an injunction against enforcement on the ground that the state has failed to prove enforcement is constitutional.
As citizens, you are claiming that you have the right not to be subjected to these rules because no such power is granted to the state. When the state, via its representative, the governor, fails to prove you wrong on the record, an honest court is required to protect you from enforcement upon petition.
The statement to the courts would be: We [ make it well publicized so the judge knows there are a lot of eyes on him ] cannot find in the state constitution where the power is granted to the state to impose these rules and mandates upon us. We therefore deny the power exists. We have challenged the governor to prove they have the constitutional authority to impose said regulations. The governor has been unable or at least unwilling to provide proof of the authority to enforce said rules and mandates.
The rule of authority is that where the power of the gov to act is not clearly stated or necessarily implied by what is stated in the relevant constitution, the power of the gov to act is forbidden.
Further, that when the gov is challenged to prove they have the constitutional power to act and they cannot or will not, the power is deemed not to exist.
Therefore, the question before the court is: Is the state constitution binding upon the legislature and governor? The obvious answer would be yes, unless the state constitution has been over thrown and Washington is an admittedly communist state where in all rights have been abolished.
Can the governor allow enforcement of laws and mandates that they cannot or will not prove to be constitutional? The clear answer is no, unless the Washington constitution has been over thrown and all rights have been abolished.
The questions must be concise and leave no room for interpretation or opinion
Remember, the judge can only rule on the evidence before him. If he did know that the Washington constitution allowed the proposed actions, he cannot enter that into the record. It is the responsibility of the the state's representative, such as the state AG, to enter such evidence.
If the judge does know that no such power exists on behalf of the gov, he cannot allow the rights of the people to be violated and he has a duty to rule on behalf of the people
If no proof of authority to act is entered into the record, for the judge to rule against the people to be free of the enforcement of the mandates would be a statement that somehow the Washington constitution and the rights it secures has have been over thrown.
The question then becomes: When and by whom?
Suggestion: Organize and petition your local sheriffs to take this task on, on behalf of the people of their counties. This is one of their constitutional duties - to protect the rights of those they were elected to serve.
A mayor has some resources and a state legislature that is against the mandates would seem to have the power, acting in an official capacity, to use all resources at their disposal to make the gov proven its actions are constitutional.
There is a retired sheriff who has started a movement to involve local sheriffs in such an action and to educate them on their constitutional duty - https://cspoa.org/
I've contacted them with a short post. I have yet to receive a reply. It appears they have a different agenda and in regard to actually protecting rights, they are all talk.
I made contact with an Oregon sheriff that claims to be against the lock downs, but is not interested in doing anything about it. I contacted a sheriff in LA country that has complained loudly, but when offered help - I get no reply.