Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

Wrong again.
Among NY lawyers at least there's more talk about how the executive orders affect court schedules and statute of limitations than there is about them being legal in the first place. I'm only hearing side chatter, though -- I'm friends with lawyers and I'm not one myself. Do you have a legal breakdown for us or is this a matter of opinion?
 
Among NY lawyers at least there's more talk about how the executive orders affect court schedules and statute of limitations than there is about them being legal in the first place. I'm only hearing side chatter, though -- I'm friends with lawyers and I'm not one myself. Do you have a legal breakdown for us or is this a matter of opinion?

He signed an executive order. When you sign legislation into law they report it by stating the governor signed new law x. It isnt a new law.
 
He signed an executive order. When you sign legislation into law they report it by stating the governor signed new law x. It isnt a new law.
Did you read through the law? Executive orders can't establish new laws but they can and do enforce existing laws. In this case the executive orders are enforcing Section 29-A. State legislature can reject the executive orders, as stated by the law.
 
Did you read through the law? Executive orders can't establish new laws but they can and do enforce existing laws. In this case the executive orders are enforcing Section 29-A. State legislature can reject the executive orders, as stated by the law.

Yes.
 
Nevada Gov. Sisolak issues three-week 'statewide pause' as COVID cases surge
Restrictions include a stronger mask mandate and new capacity limits
 
He signed an EO, not a law. Not ignoring anything.

Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures and are not law

Executive order - Wikipedia.
Literally the next line:

"State executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect."

Additionally I sent you a copy of the very law that enables these particular executive orders. This is exactly what's frustrating parties in court when they are challenging Cuomo. Not only is there legal precedent behind the executive orders, there's an explicit law from the state legislature putting those orders into force. Two legal arguments have been made against these orders: 1. The orders don't conform to the law, Section 29-A 2. The orders violate constitutional rights. Neither argument has been effective.

So you can split hairs with "this executive order is not law" because it's the action that enforces an existing law. But you're still on the hook for complying with Section 29-A, and nothing thus far has changed that.
 
Literally the next line:

"State executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect."

Additionally I sent you a copy of the very law that enables these particular executive orders. This is exactly what's frustrating parties in court when they are challenging Cuomo. Not only is there legal precedent behind the executive orders, there's an explicit law from the state legislature putting those orders into force. Two legal arguments have been made against these orders: 1. The orders don't conform to the law, Section 29-A 2. The orders violate constitutional rights. Neither argument has been effective.

So you can split hairs with "this executive order is not law" because it's the action that enforces an existing law. But you're still on the hook for complying with Section 29-A, and nothing thus far has changed that.

I guess the "are not law" part of the statement stumps you?
 
Advertisement





Back
Top