No, what he’s asserting is this:
In a “Republican form of government” the laws are made by the people, a representative group of who is the legislature.
That’s it. There is no other way for something to become “law”, unless it is passed by the legislature.
The Governor is part of the executive who makes sure the laws are followed.
We have no kings or emperors. But we do have alot of tyrant wannabees.
I wrote this same thing on FR months ago.
That sounds too democratic rather than republican. That’s why there are constitutions of law; Tacitus is often referenced as noting that the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state is, and Woodrow Wilson even described democracy as being against individual rights when he said (with respect to democracy) “Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals”—hence a representative legislature can be as tyrannical as a dictatorial executive no matter the title (governor, president etc.). Constitutions are meant to stand against tyrannical laws no matter who enacts them, of course.
Bkmk
Spot on.
Was promulgating exactly the same sentiment early on.
The problem is executive lawmaking; routine, unexamined extensions of emergency declarations by power-drunk governors; and a weak, fawning, lazy, or complicit legislature unconcerned with the fact that their power has just been ruthlessly usurped, rendering them redundant and worthless.