Well what matters is that he elected officials have decided that it is a threat.
We the people elected legislators who saw fit to give that decision making authority to an elected official.
You may not see it as a serious threat. I do. And we can agree to disagree. But the Governor of that state sees it as a serious threat and used her duly enacted powers to deal with it.
Again there is a question of the 1976 law superseding the 1945 law without specifically saying it was superseding the 1945 law. But that’s up to the courts to decide.
You can question her judgement all day long, but she was elected and has the law on her side.
Elections have consequences.
Not in Michigan Danny. As I stated previously, the state legislature voted against an extension of her EO beyond April 30........
So what do you call an elected official who ignores the rulings of the very government they preside over?
Thank youfor you input, If you see it as a serious threat, by all means, take personal action. But we have a system for passing laws that remove people’s freedom. There is a reason courts stop this nonsense.
We are not Europe. We are adults. We are free men.
And Mr. Monk does not set our health standards.
George said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29lF43mUlo
We can agree to disagree. e.g. I’m more concerned about the flu. But when one of us starts promoting things like mandatory mask wearing, shutting down businesses, controlling businesses Soviet style, all for another flu virus, we are no longer merely disagreeing. One of us supports tyranny and the other believes in fighting it.
You and my may disagree about what color of car to buy, what to have for lunch, etc., but when one supports controlling the day to day activities of another, that is something different and not to be tolerated.