Superior Court Stops Newsom’s Unconstitional ‘Pandemic’ Laws in California
As Democrat governors move to centralize their power during the alleged ‘pandemic’, higher courts are ruling against them.
This past week, both New York and California took taken the initiative under the guise of COVID-19 to re-impose draconian lockdown measures going into the winter – despite the fact that hospitalizations and casualty numbers are at normal five year averages. As Democrat governors move to centralize their power during the alleged ‘pandemic’, higher courts are ruling against them. Anti-lockdown decisions have been rendered in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and finally in California too.
However, ambitious California’s Gavin Newsom received a rude awakening after a high court judge upheld a ruling limiting the governor’s dictatorial and unconstitutional powers during what state officials are still claiming to be a ‘pandemic.’
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A tentative State Superior Court ruling against California Governor Gavin Newsom was finalized on Friday.
A Northern California County judge decided Newsom overstepped his authority when he changed state law during the COVID-19 pandemic in violation of California’s constitution.
Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman made her tentative ruling the day before the election regarding one of Newsom’s executive orders from June. His order required election officials to establish hundreds of locations statewide where voters could cast their ballots — something lawmakers would end up approving.
The lawsuit against the governor was brought on by Republican Assemblymen James Gallagher and Kevin Kiley, who released the following joint statement.
“Today, the Court confirmed that Gavin Newsom does not rule California and that we are still a nation of laws. California has not been well-served by one-man rule. A return to representative government will be best for public health and the economy. The Governor must accept this ruling as a fundamental principle of our democracy and govern himself accordingly.”
The lawsuit challenged the governor’s executive order and what the assemblymen called an “abuse of separation of powers.”
The judge’s ruling broadly barred Newsom “from exercising any power under the California Emergency Services Act which amends, alters, or changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy.”
The Republican assemblymen said the judge’s final ruling, through a permanent injunction, prevents the governor from unilaterally making these decisions, moving forward.
Newsom had requested to delay the enforcement of the decision, but that request was denied.
Pictorial content added by (TLB)
READ MORE COVID NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
(TLB) published this article from 21WIRE with our appreciation for the coverage.
YOU CAN SUPPORT 21 WIRE’S WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV
Related from The Liberty Beacon:
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.