Posted on 06/26/2024 4:09:12 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Gov. Ron DeSantis vowed the Sunshine State won’t abide by potential bureaucratic restrictions on Second Amendment rights after the U.S. surgeon general declared firearm violence a “public health crisis.”
The Biden administration’s surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, said guns “[pose] a serious threat to the health and well-being of our country.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ webpage for the advisory does not list any new legal action taken on restrictions, but DeSantis warned that similar advisories were issued at the start of the coronavirus pandemic – preceding lockdowns and other government mandates.
“During COVID, unelected bureaucrats used ‘public health’ as a pretext to deprive citizens of their rights– and I signed legislation to protect Floridians from government overreach,” DeSantis said. “Now, Biden’s Surgeon General is attempting to violate the Second Amendment through the ‘public health’ bureaucracy.”
“We will not comply,” he said. “Florida will always reject the Biden Administration’s unconstitutional power-grabs.”
In 2022, when the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention worked to add COVID-19 vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule, DeSantis vowed against any vaccine mandates for children.
(Excerpt) Read more at flvoicenews.com ...
Absolutely.
I can give you a reason why no state should: Early voting tells Deep State how much it has to cheat.
WTG, FL.
Dr. Vivek Murthy:
Vivek Hallegere Murthy is an American physician and a vice admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
Nominations: CNN-IBN Indian of the Year Global Indian.
(cough)
The Supreme Court just lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies
https://www.vox.com/scotus/357554/supreme-court-sec-jarkesy-roberts-sotomayor-chaos
On Thursday, the Court handed down a 6-3 decision, on a party-line vote, that could render a simply astonishing array of federal laws unenforceable. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in dissent, “the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.”
The dispute in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy turns on whether a hedge fund manager accused of defrauding investors is entitled to a jury trial to determine whether he violated federal securities law, or whether the government acted properly when it tried him before an official known as an “administrative law judge” (ALJ).
The charges against this hedge fund manager, George Jarkesy, are civil and not criminal, which matters because the Constitution treats civil trials very differently from criminal proceedings. While the Sixth Amendment provides that “in all criminal prosecutions” the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the Seventh Amendment provides a more limited jury trial right, requiring them “in suits at common law” (more on what that means later).
SEC v. Jarkesy could render much of the federal government unable to function.
Congress, moreover, has enacted a wide range of laws on the presumption that many enforcement proceedings may be brought before administrative law judges and not juries. According to one somewhat dated review of federal law cited by Sotomayor, “by 1986, there were over 200” federal statutes calling for trials before ALJs.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion in Jarkesy leans heavily into the kind of remedy available to the SEC if it prevails in a suit before an ALJ. Like a suit before a common law court, the SEC sought monetary damages from Jarkesy, and thus this case resembles a suit at common law in that way. As Roberts writes, “money damages are the prototypical common law remedy.”
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.