You cannot know the real numbers unless the dead are tested for the virus after the fact. What you have are the numbers of people that have died after already being diagnosed with the virus.
I was having to be same thought. Nor do the religious beliefs or motivations of the plaintiffs undercut the merits of their legal argument.
Precisely.
Why on earth is the quorum set so high? That gives control of the Legislature to the minority.
Yes, it gives some power to the minority. At some point they are forced to work through their differences so it’s limited by time.
It might have worked at one time.
Empowering a political minority is not inherently bad. It’s bad when the political minority uses its minority to obstruct the legislature for no reason other than to exercise its power to disrupt, which is what a political party does when it appeals to fewer and fewer people - it becomes less democratic in spirit, and it relies more on abusing what remaining powers it does have to corrode the will of the majority.
what forces them to work through their differences? what is the time limit?
I’m a little surprised at the course of the debate here. Given our current president, and the one we had before Obama, liberals should be particularly sensitive to this. In general, it is a Bad Idea to allow a chief executive to wield indefinite emergency powers. If that means the response to a public health emergency is not what it ought to be, then the constitution and relevant legislation should be amended. But no one from any party should be allowed to rule by fiat, even if their motives are pure.
I agree. However, I find it very odd that there is an emergency powers statute on the books that is more expansive than the constitutional provision and seems to be the source of the ambiguity.
Not when the chair has the authority to compel the attendance of absent members.
I am just guessing, but a higher quorum number is simply protective of the entire house. Suppose a 51-49 Republican majority and the majority proposes a radical right wing bill that only gets 28 GOP votes and no Dem votes. Under a majority quorum, you could call a quick session, round up the Republicans, and pass the radical bill on a 28-23 vote, whereas if you had to have more members you couldn’t do this.
I also don’t see anything wrong with the idea that the legislators have a job to do and that they should all be there for every session unless excused for illness or personal emergency.
What is your position on the ambiguity? I’m not familiar with Oregon case law, but it seems that the Constitution has already set out the balance of power between the executive and legislative and the legislature cannot simply cede its own power by statute.
I don’t see how this would be any different (under the US Constitution) than a law requiring a unanimous vote to overturn a veto or allowing the President to ratify a treaty without approval of the Senate.
Don’t know enough to comment, beyond what I said; would be a question of Washington constitutional law. If that’s the basis for the current disagreement between the Governor and the Legislature, it seems odd that the earlier emergency statute was never repealed when the constitutional amendment went through.
So what is your point?
Mine is that the governor of Oregon is abusing her power for a non- crisis situation, and those low numbers underscore the degree of her overreach.
The governor of Oregon is making reasoned and informed decisions, which has kept all of us safer.
Do either of you actually read what I write before you decide what I said?
I said twice, in 2 separate posts, that I am not confident that Governor Brown’s arguments will prevail.
The fact that the persons bringing the legal action are religious has no bearing, and I have not said otherwise. I would be equally disturbed if a small, noisy group of indoor tap dancing enthusiasts were asserting the view that their rights to assemble and tap dance exceeded in importance the safety and welfare of citizens during a pandemic emergency. I see no 30-day restriction over governors in New York or California, so obviously not everyone in the country sees a 30-day limitation on emergency governors’ powers as a necessary bar to abject tyranny.
Obviously the flaw exists in how high the numbers are for a quorum. But as asahi points out, Republicans in the Oregon senate are not looking for consensus, only disruption. And this in the midst of a pandemic that is with us now, today, not whenever the state legislature is next set to meet.
I do think it is inappropriate that a circuit court judge accepted jurisdiction over and heard the case of one of his Facebook buddies. I was always taught that even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. Seems a joke these days.
If there is an effort here to have an honest discussion about the authority of a state governor to protect the welfare of his/her citizens in the midst of a crisis that is clearly going to exceed an arbitrary 30-day limit over the perceived rights of a vocal minority seeking to supersede those concerns, it’s hard to tell with the way this discussion has gone.
I like this part:
You can shut down before a lot of people die, or after a lot of people die. Pretty hard to find that sweet spot of just enough dead people to satisfy everyone.
My point?
“Dead Right” is not something you want on a tombstone.
Here’s from an Oregon paper today, in case it’s useful: