Idaho Lt. Gov goes rogue, issues order banning mask mandates while governor is out of town — he is N

[mystery-ak]

Idaho Lt. Gov goes rogue, issues order banning mask mandates while governor is out of town — he is NOT amused
May 28, 2021 | Jon Dougherty

**Update: Governor Brad Little rescinded McGeachin’s order on Friday afternoon with a scathing statement. (More on that below). 

Idaho Republican Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin issued an executive order banning mask mandates throughout the state including those issued by local businesses while serving a stint as acting chief executive in Gov. Brad Little’s absence.

Little, also a Republican, had left the state to attend the Republican Governors Association in Nashville and was due back by Thursday. Before he got back home, however, McGeachin used her authority as acting governor to issue the order.

“Today, as acting Governor of the State of Idaho, I signed an Executive Order to protect the rights and liberties of individuals and businesses by prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions — including public schools — from imposing mask mandates in our state,” McGeachin wrote on Twitter, posting photos of the signed order.

more
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/05/28/idaho-lt-gov-goes-rogue-issues-widespread-order-banning-mask-mandates-while-governor-is-out-of-town-1080693/

[libertybele]

Got to hand it to her ... this took some guts!

[skeeter]

This woman has a future in politics.

Gov Little, not so much.

[PeteS in CA]

A possibly good strategy. If the Governor:

* Leaves the ban in place, McGeachin looks like a courageous leader;

* Rescinds the ban (which he did) McGeachin has a big campaign issue.

My impression from some family friends who grew up in CA but have lived in ID for several years is that mask mandates and such are not popular among Idahoans.

As an aside, our friends are something many conservatives ASSume cannot exist: California transplants who are conservative.

[HoustonSam]

Looks like a publicity stunt to me.

Article indicates there *were no* state-wide mask mandates to repeal.  So a self-professed enemy of tyranny and executive overreach simply took authority away from elected local officials via executive order.  I didn't realize we supported that kind of thing around here.

[thackney]

Looks like a publicity stunt to me.

Article indicates there *were no* state-wide mask mandates to repeal.  So a self-professed enemy of tyranny and executive overreach simply took authority away from elected local officials via executive order.  I didn't realize we supported that kind of thing around here.

Some of us consider the local bans government overreach.  I am one of those.

[HoustonSam]

Some of us consider the local bans government overreach.  I am one of those.

I might consider a local mask mandate to be government overreach also.  That isn't the issue.

According to the article, the local officials in question answer directly to the local people because they are elected, not appointed by the Governor (or, to be sure, the Lt Governor).  Elected officials draw their authority directly from the voters; neither the Governor nor the Lt Governor has any legitimate authority to intervene in the voters' conferral of that authority.  If the people in those localities consider that their elected local officials are overstepping legal boundaries they can they can take their issue up through the courts, and definitively resolve it in the voting booth.

[thackney]

I might consider a local mask mandate to be government overreach also.  That isn't the issue.

According to the article, the local officials in question answer directly to the local people because they are elected, not appointed by the Governor (or, to be sure, the Lt Governor).  Elected officials draw their authority directly from the voters; neither the Governor nor the Lt Governor has any legitimate authority to intervene in the voters' conferral of that authority.  If the people in those localities consider that their elected local officials are overstepping legal boundaries they can they can take their issue up through the courts, and definitively resolve it in the voting booth.

We will have to disagree here @HoustonSam.  Even the majority can be tyranny on individual rights.  It has happened in other topics.  Even here in Texas that has had to be stopped by the state.

For example:
City of Denton and mineral rights:

Dissecting Denton: How One City Banned Fracking
https://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/15/dissecting-denton-how-texas-city-baned-fracking/

Curbing Local Control, Abbott Signs "Denton Fracking Bill"
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/18/abbott-signs-denton-fracking-bill/

[Cyber Liberty]

We will have to disagree here @HoustonSam.  Even the majority can be tyranny on individual rights.  It has happened in other topics.  Even here in Texas that has had to be stopped by the state.

For example:
City of Denton and mineral rights:

Dissecting Denton: How One City Banned Fracking
https://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/15/dissecting-denton-how-texas-city-baned-fracking/

Curbing Local Control, Abbott Signs "Denton Fracking Bill"
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/18/abbott-signs-denton-fracking-bill/

We'll see more and more of States doing these things, as the big-city Rats push the stupidity envelope.

[HoustonSam]

We will have to disagree here @HoustonSam.  Even the majority can be tyranny on individual rights.  It has happened in other topics.  Even here in Texas that has had to be stopped by the state.

For example:
City of Denton and mineral rights:

Dissecting Denton: How One City Banned Fracking
https://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/15/dissecting-denton-how-texas-city-baned-fracking/

Curbing Local Control, Abbott Signs "Denton Fracking Bill"
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/18/abbott-signs-denton-fracking-bill/

Thanks for the links @thackney;  I was not aware of that issue in Denton.  I would argue that it's not quite analogous however; there seems to be good Constitutional basis for asserting that the state of TX, not a city, has authority over fracking regulation.  Also Greg Abbott did not attempt to overturn Denton by Executive Order, as the Lt Gov attempted in Idaho; he signed a piece of legislation passed by the people's elected representatives.

I'm not saying that local is always right or that mask mandates or fracking are good or bad or that majorities are always right.  I'm simply saying if a Governor can assert state-wide  authority via simple executive order then we really don't have Constitutional government, even if we happen to agree with the order; the executive order could just as easily *require* mask mandates as overturn them.  I suspect that has been the case in some of the blue states.

But it's OK if we disagree, I'll still be learning energy economics from you here.

[thackney]

Thanks for the links @thackney;  I was not aware of that issue in Denton.  I would argue that it's not quite analogous however; there seems to be good Constitutional basis for asserting that the state of TX, not a city, has authority over fracking regulation.  Also Greg Abbott did not attempt to overturn Denton by Executive Order, as the Lt Gov attempted in Idaho; he signed a piece of legislation passed by the people's elected representatives.

I'm not saying that local is always right or that mask mandates or fracking are good or bad or that majorities are always right.  I'm simply saying if a Governor can assert state-wide  authority via simple executive order then we really don't have Constitutional government, even if we happen to agree with the order; the executive order could just as easily *require* mask mandates as overturn them.  I suspect that has been the case in some of the blue states.

But it's OK if we disagree, I'll still be learning energy economics from you here.

While there are instances of need for executive orders, normally a timing issue while waiting for our next legislative situation, I can agree they get abused.

I really only meant my example of local is not always right.

Cheers!