Posted on 06/09/2021 7:36:50 AM PDT by Fitzy_888
[EXCERPT: HEREBY ORDERED]
Cleary, what has been ordered by the Governor’s emergency decrees constitute legislation. Dr. Stack’s testimony demonstrates that he and others engage in a process of collaboration and review of CDC guidelines and other documents, the purpose of which is to impose rules on persons and businesses in Kentucky, and that in formulating these rules they tailor them to apply uniformly across the Commonwealth.95 This is formulating policy. He further testified that they have repeatedly amended and revised their orders, thus showing they deem to have the power to make laws and alter them at discretion. Indeed, he described the orders imposed as having a “breathtaking scope.”96
It is obvious from even a cursory review that the orders issued over the past fifteen months “attempt to control” and seek “to form and determine future rights and duties” of Kentucky citizens. These included ordering the closure of all businesses, except those the Governor deemed essential. He ordered churches closed, prohibited social gatherings, including at weddings and funerals, prohibited travel, and through CHFS, even prohibited citizens from receiving scheduled surgeries and access to medical care. And then there is the order that everyone wear a mask. These are, undeniably, attempts to control, set policy, and determine rights and duties of the citizenry. Except in those instances where the federal courts have stepped in, Defendants assert authority to modify or re-impose these orders at their sole discretion. Consider, for example, the recent modification of the mask mandate. It orders persons who did not get vaccinated for Covid-19 to wear masks but lifts that requirement for others. That is setting policy and determining future rights and duties.
At the hearing, Defendants took exception to the Attorney General’s characterization of the Governor’s actions as a “lockdown,” and argued that prohibiting persons from entering those restaurants is not the same as ordering that they be closed. But that doesn’t minimize the impact on those who lost their businesses as a result, or those in nursing homes condemned to spend their final hours alone, deprived of the comfort from loved ones (or even any real contact with humanity), or those citizens who the Governor prohibited from celebrating their wedding day with more than ten persons, or those he forced to bury their dead alone, without the consoling presence of family and friends (and who likewise were deprived of paying their final respects), or those persons who were barred from entering church to worship Almighty God during Holy Week, and even Easter Sunday, or those persons who were denied access to health care, including cancer-screenings, or those denied entry into government buildings (which they pay for with their taxes) in order to obtain a necessary license, and who were forced to wait outside for hours in the sweltering heat, or rain, purportedly to keep them from getting sick.
What the people have endured over the past fifteen months—to borrow a phrase from United States District Judge Justin R. Walker—“is something this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel.”97 Yet, Defendants contend that the Governor’s rule by mere emergency decree must continue indefinitely, and independent of legislative limits. In effect, Defendants seek declaratory judgment that the Constitution provides this broad power so long as he utters the word, “emergency.” It does not. For this Court to accept Defendant’s position would not be honoring its oath to support the Constitution; it would be tantamount to a coup d’état against it.
To succeed on their claims that the New Legislation is unconstitutional, Defendants bear a heavy burden. Statutes enacted by the General Assembly enjoy a “strong presumption of constitutionality.”98 This is especially true here, since Defendants contend that the Acts are unconstitutional on their face. “A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully.”99 In order to find legislation unconstitutional, “the violation of the Constitution must be clear, complete and unmistakable.”100 Further, the party “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”101 For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden. And for the same reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion, and the arguments of the Attorney General, are well taken.
THEREFORE, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and DECLARATORY RELIEF is GRANTED in that the Court finds and declares that all actions taken by Defendants, Hon. Andrew Beshear, as Governor, Mr. Eric Friedlander, as acting Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and Dr. Steven Stack, M.D., as Commissioner for the Kentucky Department of Public Health, and all emergency orders imposed by said Defendants, or that are being continued by said Defendants, are unconstitutional, void and without any legal effect, to the extent that the same are in conflict with, or are otherwise contrary to, House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, as passed in the 2021 session of the General Assembly.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction is GRANTED and that, effective June 10, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., Defendants, Hon. Andrew Beshear, as Governor, Mr. Eric Friedlander, as acting Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and Dr. Steven Stack, M.D., as commissioner for the Kentucky Department of Public Health, are enjoined from enforcing Plaintiff to comply with any emergency orders imposed by said Defendants, or that are being continued by said Defendants, that are in conflict with, or are otherwise contrary to, House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, as passed in the 2021 session of the General Assembly.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is DENIED, in that the result of the Declaratory Judgment has the same effect.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Declaratory Judgment that the General Assembly violated the Constitution in passing House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, is DENIED.
There being no just cause for delay in the entry of this Judgement, this Judgment is final and appealable.
The Clerk shall serve notice of entry hereof in accordance with CR 77.
IT IS SO ORDERED
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL CAMERON
VS.
HON. ANDREW BESHEAR, GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.,
(Related Commentary)
AMERICA | JUDGE- SAYS NO TO ALL | MAKES A GROUND BREAKING JUDGMENT ON COVID MANDATES
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jaZDUez4K9nL/
It will be appealed.
The little punk king Andy will not be happy being told no by anyone! He will appeal it to his supreme court and they will allow him to do anything. They never heard of the state legislature, separation of powers or the KY Constitution.
BTTT.
Thanks for linking directly to the decision itself! You rock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.