Governors Can’t “Re-Open” States Because They Had No Authority to Close Them

One of LRC’s readers, Don McFadden, is “a CPA (with an MBA) who spent many years dealing with business and securities law.  Unlike governors and local officials, I believe the bill of rights (state and U.S.) actually mean what they plainly say.” Obviously, this guy will never win elective office.

Mr. McFadden writes:

It seems to me that demanding a governor to “reopen” a state may not be the best approach for the long-term. That demand assumes that the governor had the authority to close it in the first place. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that these orders are unconstitutional and unlawful. Since sheriffs are almost universally elected, and they are the highest law enforcement officer in each county, they have the ability to reject unlawful orders from state and local governments. I realize a few of them have gone on record stating that they will resist some aspects of these orders. Should we not demand an answer from them explaining why they think that their state constitutions “allow” such violations of civil rights? If the sheriffs don’t enforce these orders, then the edicts have no more value than a politician’s promise. At least there could be islands of freedom in a totalitarian sea. Then money and goods would flow to the free zones and put economic and political pressure on the zones of tyranny nearby.

Of course, a corrupt sheriff (but I repeat myself) might say

…that he just follows the advice of state or county officials. However, I would respond by asking “Are there any orders that you would not obey?”

Clearly, there aren’t any the hibernating, masked sheeple won’t.

Share

11:44 am on April 20, 2020