Wisconsin: The Governor Verses the Constitution.
Over this past week we have seen a lot happen in Wisconsin. We had to wait what felt like an eternity to hear the State Supreme Court decision on stay at home orders during this virus crisis. Within hours of the decision, Governor Tony Evers recorded a live phone interview with CNN. During his interview with CNN Evers was allowed to voice his opinion on a 161 page Supreme Court Decision. The majority of the claims Governor Evers made were completely contrary to the written decision released a few hours before the governor’s live interview.
Governor: “Overturning stay-at-home order puts Wisconsin ‘into chaos’”
Decision: ¶65 “Therefore, I conclude there is a legal basis upon which to consider the Legislature’s extraordinary request. I too am appreciative of the concerns raised by COVID-19 and the possibility of throwing the state into chaos. Accordingly, although our declaration of rights is effective immediately, I would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20, 2020.”
Governor: “Wisconsin Republican Legislature and those 4 Supreme Court Justices decided …”
Decision: Wisconsin Legislature, Petitioner
“In its last act of judicial activism, the majority takes it upon
itself to immediately overturn Emergency Order 28, a remedy neither
party asked for.”
¶167 “Some would like to characterize this case as a battle
over the constitutional limits on executive power——can an
executive branch officer really shut down businesses, limit
travel, and forbid public gatherings? These are important
questions for sure, but they are not what this case is about. No
party has raised or developed such a claim. Some would also like
to frame this as a challenge to the government’s potential infringement of certain constitutional protections like the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly, and the right to hunt and fish. But these issues are not before us either. No party
has raised or developed a claim along these lines. ”
¶254 “First, in what is a recurring theme, this argument was
not developed by any party. This is raised sua sponte by this
court without the benefit of adversarial briefing. We risk serious
error when we issue broad rulings based on legal rationales that
have not been tested through the crucible of adversarial
litigation. When accepting an original action, this danger is
Court records show the lawsuit was not filed by one party, or only by Republics on the State Legislature, but by both parties in a unified effort to ensure the security of the State Constitution they took an oath to defend. Evers wants people to believe this court case was a battle between Democrats and Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Judge ROGGENSACK went out of his way to prove this decision was not a political move or one party attacking another. Evers wants people to believe every Democrat in Wisconsin supported his move to place the Constitution on hold, completely ignore it, and the Constitution needs to be modified. That is not the opinion of the Supreme Court nor the Legislature made up of Democrats and Republicans. As a whole the majority of the judges in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as well as the State Legislature agree, one man should never stand above the State Constitution establishing checks and balances to protect the rights of all Wisconsin citizens. Evers claims 69% of Wisconsin supported his decision to seize total control and pass that control onto those of his choosing.
Governor: “Today absolutely Republican Legislatures and those four Supreme Court justices decided that facts don’t matter, statues don’t matter, and frankly it puts our state into chaos. There are no regulations out there. Period.”
Reporter: “Does this mean all businesses in your state can open tomorrow or right away?”
Governor: “Yes. The Tavern league of Wisconsin sent a message to all the people in their organization saying you can open now. And that’s happening all across Wisconsin as we speak. So this is the wild west now.”
This clearly indicates, the governor did not read the court decision. Evers’ statement shows, his moves are 100% politically motivated. It also shows Evers has zero concern for the people he was elected to serve. By implying the Tavern League now sets the laws and standards in Wisconsin, Evers single handedly created a state of chaos. Which of course was his intent.
As governor, Evers is sworn to uphold the laws of Wisconsin. He had the opportunity to educate the public on the court decision but instead chose to turn the decision into a political battle, drive a wedge between democrats and republicans not only on the political field but throughout the state, and imply the court decision opened the door for any organization or individual to interpret the law they see fit. To imply one court decision removed all laws from Wisconsin is dangerous and naive statement beneath the dignity of any elected official in any capacity. What did motivate Evers to make such a statement?
After reading the court decision no one can argue the fact, this was a case of one person challenging the state constitution in what everyone agrees a national crisis.
¶69 “Endowing one person with the sole power to create,
execute, and enforce the law contravenes the structural separation
of powers established by the people. Through the Wisconsin
Constitution, the people confer distinct powers on the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
“Three clauses of the Wisconsin Constitution embody this
separation: Article IV, Section 1”
What was Evers’ motive to change the State Supreme Court decision centered on the State Constitution into a political battle between parties? The detail that should come to every educated voter mind is the fact Tony Evers was in charge of the state education system since 2001.
“After working as a schoolteacher for several years, he became a school administrator, serving as a principal and, later, district superintendent. Evers first ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1993 and again in 2001, losing both elections. Evers was instead appointed deputy superintendent, a position he served in from 2001 to 2009. In 2009, he ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction again, this time winning. He was reelected twice, in 2013 and 2017.”
There is no better expert on the Wisconsin school system than Tony Evers. Before making that phone call to CNN, Evers had to decide to gamble on the presumption that no one would read the actually court decision. Having a clear insight to the Wisconsin educational system, Evers felt secure enough to do a live interview, present his view of the facts knowing CNN would never question nor research his claims, and few if any individuals in Wisconsin would fact check his claims. Evers also banked on the idea that voters supporting his party would accept a pack of lies because it damages the reputation of the opposing party. Voters supporting Evers would accept statements aimed at damaging the reputation of Republicans without checking the actual facts. Evers comments achieved their goal. News agencies all over the country chose to air Evers comments, presenting them as facts without ever reading the actual court decision. Here is one random example of the fake news Evers sparked.
Wisconsin Is a Warning
On Wednesday night, the state’s highest court issued a hyperpartisan ruling that endangers thousands of lives.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the state’s stay-at-home order on Wednesday in a 4–3 decision that condemned the public health measure as a grave assault on citizens’ constitutional rights. Two justices compared the order, which closed nonessential businesses and limited large gatherings of people, to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Even though the plaintiffs and defendants agreed the court should put its ruling on hold, the majority of justices refused to do so, instead implementing the decision immediately. As a result, Wisconsinites flocked to reopened bars Wednesday night during a pandemic, in a state that is nowhere close to flattening the curve.
Like the governor, the media neglects to cover news in an unbiased fashion or provide a link for readers to further research the reasoning behind comments and the decision as a whole.
Decision: “We mention cases like Korematsu in order to test the limits of
government authority, to remind the state that urging courts to
approve the exercise of extraordinary power during times of
emergency may lead to extraordinary abuses of its citizens.”
“Meanwhile, Kelly’s concurrence displayed a remarkable lack of humility for a judge who was just soundly rejected by the people he serves. He proposed new, far-reaching limitations on the executive branch’s authority, carrying forward the Legislature’s crusade to strip the Democratic governor of his powers. Oddly enough, both Kelly and Bradley rooted their theories in the Wisconsin Constitution—but they repeatedly cited three opinions involving the federal Constitution: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, and Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads. None of these opinions actually carries legal weight. Yet it appears that Kelly and Bradley will transform them into Wisconsin law if they get the opportunity.”
That news story did provide a number of links to back up its story. The majority of links supplied take the reader to other biased articles written by the same news agency and other news agencies with articles that agree with their false statements. In other words, their reporting is biased and as any reader with an open mind can tell, is dedicated to changing state constitutions and our federal Constitution. Why do media outlets and a small minority of politicians want to change the Constitution? And why does the media go out of its way to hide any logical conversations about the Constitution from the public and throw up smoke screens to redirect public attention to senseless battles over just about every word in the Constitution?
So far we have a debate over rights preserved in the state constitution redirected into a political battle. And we have a governor with nearly 2 decades of experience in the state education system. Add to that certain media outlets who neglect to check the facts he presented. The first detail we need to consider is, what kind of educator in their right mind would teach a generation to accept opinions without gathering and examining facts? Socialist do. Communists rely on that type of thinking.
Is there a link between Governor Evers comments on the Supreme Court decision, the failing education system, and the democratic-socialist movement across the US? There is another leading indicator to consider. Every socialist movement relies in two main details, the ability to control people and taking away their ability to defend themselves. How does Governor Evers stand in gun control?
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says Republican legislative leaders who oppose gun control bills that polls show enjoy broad public support are essentially telling the public to “go to hell.”
Evers made the comment Monday after calling the Republican-controlled Legislature into a special session — which will take place Nov. 7 — to take up a pair of gun control measures that GOP leaders have been unwilling to debate.
The governor had called on lawmakers to take up an expansion of background checks and a so-called “red flag” law, which would allow gun rights to be temporarily revoked from individuals who are deemed by a court to be potentially harmful to themselves or others.
Republicans have argued the bills violate Second Amendment and due process rights. They declined to advance other gun-related proposals during the special session as well, though Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, argued the Assembly’s work on suicide prevention and attempted veto overrides related to mental health funding would address the root cause of gun violence.
The governor has cited strong public support for both expanding background checks and the red-flag proposal. According to recent polls from Marquette University Law School, both measures have at least 80 percent approval from Wisconsin residents.
To examine this piece of evidence, we need to consider a few facts. What was Evers’ motive in introducing those bills. I think the majority of people agree on back ground checks and the fact we need to get guns out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others. Wisconsin along with most other states have laws on the books that do just that. Legislatures told Evers his laws would be a violation of Constitutional rights. Another example of Evers attempting to under mind the Constitution.
Some accuse Republicans of catering to voters. Let’s check out the facts on that accusation. Wisconsin does have a bunch of hunters. Are they enough to sway a vote?
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin …. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!
The State of Wisconsin had 3,397,693 active registered voters on May 1, 2020.
Hunters account for less than 20% of general voters. Hardly a number to be concerned about at the polls. So we would have to accept the fact, the Republican majority in the Senate along with the majority of Democrats in the state legislature do not agree with Governor Evers’ quest to change the State Constitution. Not for far reaching gun laws going beyond laws already on the books. The legislature does not agree with changing the Constitution to open the doors for the confiscation of guns by any agency the governor decides to name in the future. We’ve seen that fail with the COVID orders. We can thank the Wisconsin legislative branch for putting a stop to that type of power grab in other areas.
After the court decision was released, mayors and county executives threatened to impose stricter restrictions in their cities and counties. Did you see what just happened? State gun control laws allow cities and counties to pass their own local laws. Every business in Wisconsin has the right to ban guns on their property. State law contains a list of properties where firearms are not allowed. Cities and counties have forearm ordinances on the books. If they wanted a total ban on guns, or certain types of guns, they have the right to pass ordinances in their cities and counties. Why do they refuse to pass local ordinances on guns, but want the state to pass state laws and the federal government to pass federal laws enforced throughout the country? If you have a problem in your backyard, handle it. But don’t make my problem your problem.
That was the problem we saw with the COVID laws. The entire state was made to suffer equally. If one city has people who refused to follow orders, stricter orders were put in effect for the entire state. And now we have cities and counties saying they will address local problems. In some areas that may be a good idea. I would suggest caution. If the State Supreme Court just told us those orders were unconstitutional, what good is it going to do when mayors and county executives begin passing local ordinances that are unconstitutional? The Supreme court already warned the door is open for companies and individuals to sue the state for damages. In the long run, lawmakers could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Which would be nothing new. If you did a little research it would not take long to uncover one example after another of special interest groups demanding special treatment for one group or another. Shortly after a law is passed and certain groups receive special assistance based on sex, creed, color, or nationality, the same group that demanded that special treatment rushes in with a host of lawsuits representing groups who claim discrimination. Actions like that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Much of that money is funneled into political campaigns promising programs for every minority under the sun. People are elected. New laws favoring one group above all others is passed. Lawsuits are filed and the wheels keep turning, driving the average taxpayer into the ground. This has to stop. This will continue until the average American voter takes on the responsibility of becoming an informed voter. Do not allow the media to deceive you.