Jacob Anderegg (R-Lehi) recently posted this about the special session and the declaration of emergency of the governor:
Coronafraud Update: How “Lawful” are Herbert’s Tyrannical Edicts? by Daniel Newby
Citizens have been pressuring legislators to overturn Gary “Available Jones” Herbert’s current tyrannical edict (aka “order”). In response, Herbert is threatening to allow his tyrannical edict to expire at Midnight tomorrow (Thursday), and then issue a new one shortly after it expires.
Here are links to Herbert’s soon-to-expire tyrannical edict:
According to said tyrannical edict, state statute 53-2a-209(1) declares that these orders have the “full force and effect of law.”
Let’s assume this interpretation is correct. According to the Utah Constitution, Article VI, Section (1)(2)(a)(1):
“The legal voters of the State of Utah, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:
(A) initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute; or
(B) require ANY LAW passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, BEFORE THE LAW MAY TAKE EFFECT. [caps added]
According to HB 75 enacted in the 2020 general session, such “laws” CAN now magically take effect prior to the completion of the referendum process. From lines 266-277:
(1) If, at the time during the counting period described in Subsection 20A-7-307(2), the lieutenant governor determines that, at that point in time, an adequate number of signatures are certified to comply with the signature requirements, the lieutenant governor shall:
(a) issue an order temporarily staying the law from going into effect [which means the law may already be in effect]; and
(b) continue the process of certifying signatures and removing signatures as required by this part.
(2) The temporary stay described in Subsection (1) remains in effect, regardless of whether a future count falls below the signature threshold, until the day on which:
(a) if the lieutenant governor declares the petition insufficient, five days after the day on which the lieutenant governor declares the petition insufficient; or
(b) if the lieutenant governor declares the petition sufficient, the day on which governor issues the proclamation described in Section 20A-7-310. [caps added]
1) If any “law” passed by the Legislature that fails to meet the two-thirds approval requirement in each house is open to referendum, wouldn’t the tyrannical edicts of one man be subject as well, particularly if they enjoy the “full force and effect of law,” or at least are promoted as such under the COLOR OF LAW?
2) Is it reasonable and legitimate for Herbert to circumvent legislative oversight by allowing orders to expire and then merely re-issue them whenever he lacks the votes to pass them, or to pass them by a two-thirds majority?
3) Can the Utah Constitution’s language regarding the referendum process, specifically the words, “BEFORE the law may take effect,” be reasonably construed to mean something else entirely as per HB 75? [In other words: Do citizens own the referendum process, or does the legislature and/or lieutenant governor own it?]
4) If the legislature, via a joint resolution, does approve an extension of Herbert’s existing tyrannical edict, without a two-thirds majority, will it again have the “full force and effect of law”?
5) If so, would that joint resolution therefore be subject to a referendum?
Seems to me these twisting and contorting tyrants want to play things both ways. Their arguments are full of holes almost as vacuous as the space between their ears.