This post concerning Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham's Executive Orders (EO) has stirred a bit of a hornet's nest over at Facebook and elsewhere.
It has also generated some comments here which, except for one, showed that the writer(s) were quite upset over the legal thesis of the writer. Naturally, those who "got their panties in a bunch" (to put it mildly) over it didn't have the guts to post them under their own names or refrain from profanity. As such, they didn't get approved by me (I run a benign totalitarian regime here 😏).
I have read some postings from New Mexico legislators that none of them were ever consulted before Gov. Grisham issued her EOs. Interesting.
I have received an email from the author of the legal thesis with a somewhat revised and updated version and it is presented here for your consumption as "your food for thought" for today:
Armand, Perhaps the following article would be more appropriate; it is one I've posted on several pages.
As regards the closure of any kind of business, know this: All this was done via Exec. Order, EO. EO's are not law, These businesses being closed is in fact, in law, a "seizure" of their property; a seizure must be committed only with a warrant. There was a Herbal store somewhere in NM which I read about on a FB page that told the NM state cops that showed up, when they threatened to close her, to leave, and come back with a warrant, and also to call her lawyer; they left.
These closures in NM are a direct violation of Article IV, Section 26, NM Constitution.
One must understand an EO is not law over the private citizens; an EO only has force and effect of law “WITHIN the executive branch over any, and all agencies in the that branch. I don’t want to go to deep and at length here but it’s fairly simple. Art IV, Sec. 26 I mentioned states no special privilege, under law, can be given to one entity, a person or business, that does not inure(is granted/applies) equally to all others. Therefore when the governor orders a specific type of business closed, and the state police close a mom and pop store selling essentially the same products a big box store does, but allow a big box to remain open she has clearly violated Article IV, Section 26.
Any forced closure of a store is a “seizure” of one’s property!
When we speak of a seizure of property we are not just speaking about taking(seizing) something physical; the business is property; the labor the people who own the store and put into the store is “property”; the income made from that business, AND the loss of it from the closure is a seizure.
For a short example of this here is a short cite from a court case as how the court views what constitutes a seizure;
A "seizure" of property occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 .
By closing a business, under threat, and they WERE threatened, did the cops interfere with their possessory interests(an interest in their possession, business, profits)? Yes, they did. And that is a violation of the 4th amendment, US Constitution, and Article II, Section 10, NM Constitution.
It is also a violation of their 5th amendment taking clause absent “due process; their livelihood was taken from them WITHOUT a court hearing (due process).
No comments:
Post a Comment