Oh I agree bro, no bailouts. That's not what I mean. I mean Barr needs to put his money where his fat mouth is and have federal prosecutors file charges against governors of blue states.
I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of how this works, but if a blue state has a tyrant governor, and both the legislature and judicial branch refuse to stop him, I think the feds can step in to protect the constitution. Because the other option is revolution which isn't ideal
I agree that revolution isn't ideal at all. And I think you kind of hit it on the nose as to what the real problem is here. No one knows what to do in this situation. No one knows where the governor's powers begin and end, which is why they are flexing the way they are, and some of them are getting smacked down by judges.
In Illinois you have one or two senators who have finally said enough is enough and started pushing back and are finding quite a bit of success in it. Same goes for that barber in Michigan. You'd expect all the Republicans would galvanize and fight back since they have to be able to see that they would win, but they aren't yet. Same goes for all the rest of those blue states. The opposition party needs to nut up and start actually being opposition. Stop being afraid of the part of the population of the state that is terrified to leave their homes, and start defending the people who want to get back to work. How do you hold their feet to the fire? God only knows.
I just read that the Illinois minority leader (a Republican) just floated some legislation to give Pritzker the ability to start confiscating property. And there you go. The Republicans in these states aren't Republicans at all, but just Democrat turncoats.
That's weird, I could have sworn that the founding fathers had some kind of problem with British soldiers taking their stuff. Wasn't there some kind of document or rule that prevented it? Must be my imagination.
Oh I agree bro, no bailouts. That's not what I mean. I mean Barr needs to put his money where his fat mouth is and have federal prosecutors file charges against governors of blue states.
I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of how this works, but if a blue state has a tyrant governor, and both the legislature and judicial branch refuse to stop him, I think the feds can step in to protect the constitution. Because the other option is revolution which isn't ideal
I agree that revolution isn't ideal at all. And I think you kind of hit it on the nose as to what the real problem is here. No one knows what to do in this situation. No one knows where the governor's powers begin and end, which is why they are flexing the way they are, and some of them are getting smacked down by judges.
In Illinois you have one or two senators who have finally said enough is enough and started pushing back and are finding quite a bit of success in it. Same goes for that barber in Michigan. You'd expect all the Republicans would galvanize and fight back since they have to be able to see that they would win, but they aren't yet. Same goes for all the rest of those blue states. The opposition party needs to nut up and start actually being opposition. Stop being afraid of the part of the population of the state that is terrified to leave their homes, and start defending the people who want to get back to work. How do you hold their feet to the fire? God only knows.
Preach it
I just read that the Illinois minority leader (a Republican) just floated some legislation to give Pritzker the ability to start confiscating property. And there you go. The Republicans in these states aren't Republicans at all, but just Democrat turncoats.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/illinois-lawmaker-floats-legislation-give-governor-pritzker-power-confiscate-property-including-cars-trucks-food-gas-animals-clothing-etc/
That's weird, I could have sworn that the founding fathers had some kind of problem with British soldiers taking their stuff. Wasn't there some kind of document or rule that prevented it? Must be my imagination.