Spats McGee
Administrator
Oh, I know that impeachment proceedings are surely a hot topic in NM gov't right now. While the two may not be wildly different, they're not exactly the same, either.
New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque
- Thread starter armoredman
- Start date
MY old, and probably out of date understanding of the system is that it is not the legislature's job to decide what is, and isn't constitutional in a law, but to understand and recognize what isn't or might not be constitutional in a proposed law (a bill) and NOT put it in there to begin with. Failing that, it is the courts job to rule on the LAW when it comes before them.
Also, as I understand it, the courts do not issue advisory opinions because A) its not their job to do so, and B) an opinion is just that, and not an actual ruling, and C) if they did issue advisory opinions they would spend all their time reviewing BILLS and issuing opinions, and not be able to do much if anything else....
The Courts don't advise the Legislature (in any official way) and they don't review laws passed, UNTIL a case concerning the speicific law comes before them.
Now, here's a question, about the executive order in NM. I, personally, fully agree it is malfeasance of office, my question is, right now, there is a court ordered hold on enforcement, so nothing is actually happening. IF the Gov recinds /cancells the order (even 5 minutes) before it is actually ruled on, then no one was harmed, nothing actually happened, its "over with" CAN the Gov still be charged with malfeasance, and impeached??
OR does that just go away because the order was never actually enforced???
I know my opinion, on that, what's your's??
Let me ask this . Once a SCOTUS ruling is handed down, is “a” legislature/s required to follow that decision? Meaning when it comes to the 2nd amendment now and the recent Bruen decision should any legislature be required to show how there new law regardless of type have a historical equivalent before introducing the bill ?
If not shouldn’t the AG or governors office official counsel do a review based on the SCOTUS decision before signing ?
How many times in the last 10 or 20 years have we heard a politician/lawmaker say yes this new law is likely unconstitutional but it will take years for it to work its way through the courts . How is that even close to being reasonable? The whom ever that signed an oath to the/there constitution sign something into law they admit is unconstitutional.
If not shouldn’t the AG or governors office official counsel do a review based on the SCOTUS decision before signing ?
How many times in the last 10 or 20 years have we heard a politician/lawmaker say yes this new law is likely unconstitutional but it will take years for it to work its way through the courts . How is that even close to being reasonable? The whom ever that signed an oath to the/there constitution sign something into law they admit is unconstitutional.
Not a lawyer, just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it, possibly less, but the simple answer to this questions is "no",
They are not required to follow the ruling. They should, we expect them to, but they are not required to.
I think they should, I think they ought to, but as far as I know, there is no legal requirement for them to do so, and so, they rarely do it.
I'd say THEY think it is reasonable, because they get what they want often for years, until/unless it gets before the high court and gets thrown out.
The law is a world of technicalities, and "technically" court rulings only apply to the case in which the ruling is made. Smart folks will look at the rulings and reasoning and apply those standards to laws and regulations going forward, but they are not bound by law to do so, and zealots with a cause they believe valid will happily do things that are not legal, but are the law until they are ruled invalid.
In "macro" terms, "its only a crime if you get caught" seems to be one of their operating principles.
or so it seems to me...
IMO, no.
On the one hand, this new version is on somewhat firmer constitutional ground in that "sensitive places" are allowed.
On the other hand, it's the legislature's job to define what sensitive places are, not the governor's. The weak pretext of a "public health emergency" is not going to hold up. If anything good comes out of this it will be to establish precedent that criminal violence is NOT a public health matter any more than auto accidents are and that the executive branch may NOT use "public health emergency" as an excuse to suspend the Second Amendment.
I was thinking unless its a completely different order anything she does to the existing executive order is moot because the judge TRO’d the complete order . So changing the words around in ex-order 1234 doesn’t mean anything because the judge TRO’d ex-order 1234 .
Am I understanding how that works , does she need to write a separate new order or can she just tweek the old one ?
Am I understanding how that works , does she need to write a separate new order or can she just tweek the old one ?
I'm going to guess many of the gun haters just really don't like the people who own guns. We are seeing too many guns laws directed at us, not those committing crimes.
As I understand it, some parts of the order actually dealt with public health matters, and not gun control. IF so, it is quite likely the judge did not put a restraint on enacting those parts.
I am past fed up with political figures pushing /passing/ issuing laws, decrees or orders to show they are "doing something" when those rules don't do anything about fixing or even reducing the problem.
Where is the sense in that?? Constantly we here about how we need "common sense" gun control laws. And we've gotten a lot of them in recent decades. Yet the problem persists. Has even gotten worse in specific locations. Since that is the case, "common sense" tells me the "solutions" aren't working.
Also tells me that if the people in those positions can't (or won't) offer us solutions that work, they aren't the people who should be in those positions.
I am past fed up with political figures pushing /passing/ issuing laws, decrees or orders to show they are "doing something" when those rules don't do anything about fixing or even reducing the problem.
Where is the sense in that?? Constantly we here about how we need "common sense" gun control laws. And we've gotten a lot of them in recent decades. Yet the problem persists. Has even gotten worse in specific locations. Since that is the case, "common sense" tells me the "solutions" aren't working.
Also tells me that if the people in those positions can't (or won't) offer us solutions that work, they aren't the people who should be in those positions.
Lets not loose sight of the root cause here, the NM governor's belief that she has the legal authority to issue the order under "public health emergency" rules. AND that the Governor has publicly stated that SHE doesn't believe Constitutional authority OR her oath of office is absolute, (and therefore binding on her actions).
in effect, she is saying that because she has declared gun violence a public health emergency this gives her the authority to act in any way she sees fit, and what the law and her oath of office bind her to does not matter. Its an "emergency" and we have to do this "for the children!!!"
In my opinion, any elected official who is either not smart enough, or is too lazy to work within the framework of established law should not BE an elected official and should be replaced as soon as the law allows it.
in effect, she is saying that because she has declared gun violence a public health emergency this gives her the authority to act in any way she sees fit, and what the law and her oath of office bind her to does not matter. Its an "emergency" and we have to do this "for the children!!!"
In my opinion, any elected official who is either not smart enough, or is too lazy to work within the framework of established law should not BE an elected official and should be replaced as soon as the law allows it.
armoredman
New member
She publicly said the Constitution doesn't bind her, nor does her oath. Many are at work to impeach her.
NJgunowner
New member
The politicians are in a bind. They have a group of supporters saying "DO SOMETHING" like petulant children who have no idea what "something" means. And if they don't do "something" they'll vote in someone else who will. So the politician throws things at the wall to see what sticks so during the next election cycle "I tried, but those evil pro-gun people blocked it! You need to give me more money and help vote in my friends!".
And they never want to address the root issues, as it might actually fix "something" and then what could they use to drum up support?
And they never want to address the root issues, as it might actually fix "something" and then what could they use to drum up support?
They're in a slightly worse bind than that. The more radical part of the base that wants them to "do something" that involves restricting or banning guns and isn't happy with things that might actually have an effect on crime, unless they include bans/restrictions on guns.
And then there's our side who is never happy with the entire idea that guns are the problem. and consider gun restrictions to be the wrong thing to do and actually increase the problem.
Most of the folks I know would be quite happy to have our gun rights left alone, and feel that catching, and removing from society those people who shoot people for fun or profit is the better way to go.
And then there's our side who is never happy with the entire idea that guns are the problem. and consider gun restrictions to be the wrong thing to do and actually increase the problem.
Most of the folks I know would be quite happy to have our gun rights left alone, and feel that catching, and removing from society those people who shoot people for fun or profit is the better way to go.
Yep.
I've mentioned this before, in the Twin Cities, Minnesota a guy put three 9mm rounds into a car full of people, (no one in the car got hit by the bullets) and the guy who fired on the car got six months wearing an ankle bracelet and some community service. Sheesh! Accountability??? It's left this area.
I got to thinking about this the other night (rarely a good thing, ) but I got to wondering, when a court (including SCOTUS) rules an executive order invalid (state or Fed) would it be because the order is found unconstitutional, or because the order exceeds legal authority under existing law?
Or, would it (most likely) something different in each individual case??
) but I got to wondering, when a court (including SCOTUS) rules an executive order invalid (state or Fed) would it be because the order is found unconstitutional, or because the order exceeds legal authority under existing law?Or, would it (most likely) something different in each individual case??
Frank Ettin
Administrator
A court could find an executive order invalid for a variety of reasons. A court will usually issue its ruling together with a written opinion setting out the bases for the ruling.
armoredman
New member
But will they?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
"You'll have to read it to find out."