New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[Dill]

(09-13-2023, 10:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  The Senate did follow through with it and rejected it.

That's what I meant by "didn't follow through." They let him off the charge.

(09-13-2023, 10:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Seems like the NM governor is responding to a segment of her constituency that wants something--anything--done about gun violence. 

Oh, well that's ok then.  As long as enough people want the Constitution ignored then that's fine.  This rational is a far greater threat to our democracy than what happened on 01/06.

Your words, not mine. If enough people want the Constitution "ignored" then what they do is change it. 
No idea what you mean by "rationale" here. That the governor is invoking a "health emergency" in response to gun violence?

Not sure why that sort of thing, which purports to follow law, is a greater threat than an attempt to overthrow a valid election.
You won't get all mad if I ask you to explain, will you?

(09-13-2023, 10:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan: Wrote: The governor's rationale, so far as I grasp it, has got me wondering about how "states of emergency" are to be handled by state and federal government, if the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights can never ever be suspended by anyone under any circumstances.  (For the record, I don't think the shootings which prompted her TEMPORARY ban on carrying firearms constituted a state of emergency.)

Wonder no more.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/763
Constitutional rights cannot be suspended at the state level as they are guaranteed by the Federal government.  As for your conclusion that she is not responding to a state of emergency, not that it would matter if she was, what should be the consequences for her deliberately violating her oath of office?

You're rather answering your own question here.  I'm curious, do you condemn the clearly illegal actions taking by this governor?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/#:~:text=Massachusetts%2C%20197%20U.S.%2011%20(1905)&text=A%20state%20may%20enact%20a,smallpox%20and%20protect%20public%20health.

Well I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it seems something like this (suspension of Constitutional rights) has happened before, and the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the state enforcing vaccination as part of a health emergency.  

So it's not clear to me that the Gov. would be violating the Constitution if she were acting on a genuine health emergency. I just don't think this case rises to that though. A riot with many armed participants and deaths might though. 

I do think the governor has made a mistake and don't condone her actions. I'm not on the impeachment bandwagon yet though. I want to get more information and study the law a bit more.