People didn't read the actual proclamation though. In it, the governor explicitly stated that she was not invoking the restrictions on weapons. I agree that the law is stupid and possibly unconstitutional but it isn't a problem in this case.
Elections for the executive branch matter, because in many places the executive has the authority to enforce -- or not enforce -- the laws as they see fit. We often don't like selective enforcement because it can be arbitrary and capricious as well as dangerous to the principle of rule of law, but sometimes a win is a win. I won't fault an elected official for ignorning the law to stand for civil liberties too much!
My whimsical introduction to the contrary, I do hope that the Southeast gets through the impending hurricane ok with minimal damage and loss.
What you don't understand is that the Governor does not have the power to selectively activate law. When she invokes the State of Emergency, the law is what the law is. The other part is, any mayor, sheriff, or police chief can impose a state of emergency on his or her local area and invoke the same laws.
ReplyDeleteIt's great that she's putting boilerplate language in place to pretend that she doesn't want to invoke the law as written, but that won't get her out of the lawsuit that SAF and Grass Roots NC are working on. (Bateman v. Perdue)
The governor probably has the authority to selectively enforce the law though, even if it is a de facto manner that is of questionable legality.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I bet that the governor could order all the state troopers to stop doing speeding patrols and the state AG to stop prosecuting such crimes tomorrow in order to focus on disaster relief, and they'd stop writing tickets, even though speeding remains illegal. Someone might sue to force the governor's administration to enforce and prosecute traffic law violations, but think of all the ways the executive could use their generally broad powers to delay, drag feet, and pervert the literal meaning of the law.
Normally that frustrates us, especially when executive authorities or local authorities do things that infringe upon rights such as ignoring preemption laws. I will still agree that it isn't an ideal precedent to be set. But the fact remains that the executive in most of our levels of government is an independent branch and check on the legislature; while the executive may have to pay lip service to the laws passed by the legislature there is an awful lot they can do to ignore them.
If the legislature starts cutting funds or otherwise punishing the executive, or if the judiciary forces the executive to enforce the laws, then they can check arbitrary and discretionary exercise of power contrary to the laws. Short of that though the executive may get away with it; the messy downside of divided and inefficient governments like ours, I suppose.
I agree that the better solution is to get rid of the law, by either legislative repeal or judicial action. But pragmatically, though, a win is a win, and executive action (or lack thereof) is a good start.