Posted BY: | NwoReport

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, questions arose about how the U.S. federal government would wield its emergency powers under the declaration of a national health emergency. However, many Americans didn’t anticipate the exercise of emergency powers at the state level rather than by the White House. This article explores the significant impact of state-level emergency mandates and their implications for constitutional rights.

State governments played a pivotal role in implementing COVID-19 mandates that profoundly impacted the U.S. economy. Unlike federal mandates, which face legal checks and balances, state governors in 44 states have broad authority during emergency conditions with limited immediate legal recourse. Recent incidents in Hawaii and New Mexico underscore the potential misuse of these powers.

In Hawaii, Governor Josh Green’s use of state emergency provisions led to controversies such as withholding water supplies for firefighting, blocking residents from escaping wildfires, and imposing an information blackout. This raises questions about whether these actions were driven by incompetence or a deliberate test of public compliance.

Trending: Corporate Dominance Grows: Ranchers’ Autonomy in Food Supply Wanes

Similarly, Governor Michelle Grisham of New Mexico attempted to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of Albuquerque residents, citing rising crime as the justification. However, her arguments lacked logical support, with her primary assertion being that she could ban lawful firearm carry under emergency powers.

Critics argue that such actions are ideologically driven and fail to address the root causes of rising crime. They believe that targeting gun rights is an attempt to establish control incrementally, bypassing legislative processes and ignoring constitutional checks and balances.

Courts can often deem emergency powers unconstitutional after the fact, but the damage is done. Grisham’s framing of rising crime as a “public health emergency” is viewed as an overstep of her authority, as crime is traditionally addressed through social programs and policing, not by disarming the public.

The timing and tone of such state government decisions, particularly regarding gun carry, raise concerns about political motivations and a potential test of public compliance. Grisham expects legal challenges but appears unfazed by public reaction, leaving the question of whether the New Mexico 2nd Amendment community will respond with protests, marches, or defiance.