In a complete rebuke to lower court activism the supreme court in Michigan has ruled 7-0 to vacate a lower court ruling attempting to close the shop of barber Karl Manke.
Mr. Make’s lawyer, David Kallman, called it the “biggest, most lopsided victory of his career.” This court ruling shoots down Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel’s attempt to fine Manke and pull his license after he started to cut hair before lifting certain executive orders.
MICHIGAN – […] The decision by the state’s high court came with only a concurring opinion written by Justice David Viviano in which he questioned initial handling of the case by a three-judge appeals court panel.
“Courts decide legal questions that arise in the cases that come before us according to the rule of law,” Viviano wrote. “One hopes that this great principle — essential to any free society, including ours — will not itself become yet another casualty of COVID-19.”
The three-member Court of Appeals panel’s majority decision for an immediate closure of Manke’s barbershop over Judge Brock Swartzle’s objection was “inexplicable,” Viviano said. The court also decided the matter without a full briefing, he wrote. (read more)
The ruling by the Michigan supreme court on the topic of COVID madness is particularly timely when contrast with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer defying her own social distancing dictates to permit marches and political protests that she approves.
The hypocrisy and selective enforcement of arbitrary rules/regulations, for ideological and political intents, is beyond stark.
Governor Whitmer has, and continues, to try and destroy the economy and businesses of Michigan residents over a fictitious fear of the COVID virus; but when her political ideology means she needs to break her own dictates, she does so without any regard or concern. A typical progressive politician.
As this example highlights the power of government comes from the people; or as we say in the U.S. “from the consent of the governed.” When the people lead, the politicians are forced to follow.
Without implied consent the municipal or state government has no power. None.
As a result, the lock-downs end when the majority of We The People no longer give our consent.
How do We The People retract our consent? We simply refuse to comply.
When the majority of people simply refuse to comply with unilateral dictates, and laugh in the faces of those who attempt to enforce them, the government no longer has power.
If one person refuses to comply government can, and likely will, intervene. However, if tens of thousands rebuke these unconstitutional decrees, there isn’t a damn thing govt can do to stop it… and they know it. This is why some state governors are quickly starting to retract or modify their dictates.
A non-compliant snowball becomes an unstoppable freedom avalanche.
Local, regional and state officials know they can control the behavior of an individual. If one barber shop opens, the owner becomes a target. However, those officials also know they cannot control the behavior of the majority. If every barber shop and beauty salon in town opens… there is absolutely nothing the government can do about it.
If one restaurant and/or bar opens, the state can target the owner. But if every bar and restaurant in town opens; and if everyone ignores and dispatches the silly dictates of the local, regional or state officials; there isn’t a damned thing they can do about it.
The power of the local, regional or state authority comes from the expressed consent of the people. As soon as the majority of people deny that consent, those officials and state authoritarians lose all of their power.
Yes, it really is that simple.
Those who construct the systems of control need to weaponize fear. Fear of arrest; fear of losing a business; fear of losing liberty or financial security. Local, regional and state officials rely on fear. As soon as the people are no longer fearful, the control ends.
The overwhelming majority of dictates around COVID-19 mitigation are not laws. There was no debate; no input from representative government; and no option for the public to weigh-in on the decisions.
All unilateral rules are arbitrary, and despite many proclamations to the contrary, they rely upon voluntary compliance. As soon as citizens no longer voluntarily comply, the term of the rules has expired. If masks are effective then why didn’t government give masks to prison inmates instead of releasing them?
Liberty is inherent.
The removal of liberty requires consent.
Additionally, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. So choose wisely.
Remember that; and think about it.