So, the state ran checks they had no authority to run yet based on an emergency that didn’t clear the bar to be an emergency while ignoring an injunction that’s still sitting on the judge’s desk. [Watch]
Checks and balances? We ain’t got no checks and balances. We don’t need no checks and balances. I don’t have to show you any stinking checks and balances!
If they don’t have to obey the law, why should we have to obey their lawlessness?
[Via Jess]
Colion’s analysis isn’t convincing. He never says exactly on what basis the court made its ruling that resulted in the order. If it was (e.g.) simply on the basis of the checks not being authorized by existing state law, then the passage of a new law authorizing them DOES automatically vitiate that order.
(I do agree with the issue of the invalid emergency clause, though.)
“If they don’t have to obey the law, why should we have to obey their lawlessness?”
Paraphrasing Scarlet O’Hara, “Why, Mr. Codrea! How you do go on!”
Next you’ll be telling us that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with ducks.
As a matter of fact, I seem to recall Mike Vanderboegh suggesting that the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws enacted under it serve to protect our government officials from us as much as that same Constitution and laws protect us from them.