Instead of rebuking the Governor for stomping on our rights for a year, the legislature is set to codify his actions into law. Don't like mandated Masks, social distancing, the removal of your 1st Amendment rights to assemble? Too bad, we're propping up a king.

https://texasscorecard.com/state/controversial-texas-pandemic-response-act-gets-a-new-revision/

Vote-Him-Out

Or at least codify this statement that will represent the current voting population to future generations.

"Look guys, he was the best we had at the time."

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

Quote:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

---

I want a weak governor and a strong legislature. It should have been left to local governments to pass laws if they want to require mouth diapers. I do not want a single person at the top making these kinds of decisions (like a king).

Tea Party said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

---

Individuals make the decision for themselves. Business owners choose to do business with who they want. You assume we must have a government solution with more rules. That's false. We already had a solution that did not involve government.

---

I mean that's be great, but that's not reality. Reality is some form of government is going to tell you what to do in a "disaster".

The concern is, what constitutes a disaster? It's just a slippery slope to have ever gone down for anyone that values freedom and less government.

7 days sounds good for me. you can't declare an emergency more than 7 days like Florida signed in

Another thing that sounds good is to stop with the gain of function research and lower of chances of this occurring again. I'll take my chances with natural viruses over manmade ones. But that's neither here nor there

beerad12man said:

---

The concern is, what constitutes a disaster? It's just a slippery slope to have ever gone down for anyone that values freedom and less government.

7 days sounds good for me. you can't declare an emergency more than 7 days like Florida signed in

Another thing that sounds good is to stop with the gain of function research and lower of chances of this occurring again. I'll take my chances with natural viruses over manmade ones. But that's neither here nor there

---

100%

rgag12 said:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

---

You want to leave the current system in place? You mean the system that doesn't give the governor the authority to do what he is doing, but the governor does it anyway?

Yeah that sounds like a good idea

Well at least they kind of, in a vague sort of way, defined a pandemic:

Quote:

---

"Pandemic disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat of an outbreak of an infectious disease that spreads to a significant portion of the state population and that threatens widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property in more than one-fourth of the counties in this state resulting from any natural or man-made cause related to the outbreak

---

Please define

• Significant
• Widespread
• Severe
• How infectious
• Man-made cause related to the outbreak. define related.

I believe the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES will be a disaster depending on who is in authority at the time.

Exactly. The rule giving Abbot King powers was intended for short term emergencies. As soon as he implemented tyrant authority he should have called a special session.

Ideally the mandate can only last a week or two instead of 30 days. Plenty of time for the legislature to act if it truly is an emergency. If you need more than 30 days, it's not an emergency.

richardag said:

---

Well at least they kind of, in a vague sort of way, defined a pandemic:

Quote:

---

"Pandemic disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat of an outbreak of an infectious disease that spreads to a significant portion of the state population and that threatens widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property in more than one-fourth of the counties in this state resulting from any natural or man-made cause related to the outbreak

---

Pleas define

• Significant
• Widespread
• Severe
• How infectious
• Man-made cause related to the outbreak. define related.

I believe the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES will be a disaster depending on who is in authority at the time.

---

Exactly, they can tie flu seasons into this definition.

Trashbag establishment

or any government, foreign or domestic, either deliberately or due to incompetence could trigger this control.

If there really is a problem, call an emergency session of the legislature, via Zoom if needed, and pass some legislation.

Don't give an executive these types of powers.

rgag12 said:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

---

1) He never had the power he was allowed to usurp.

2) What "disaster" was he reacting to? COVID? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

3) See # 2.

4) Let people assess/mitigate risks themselves.

Republican politicians dont care about Texans civil liberties or businesses. They know conservative voters wont hold them accountable.

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

---

You want to leave the current system in place? You mean the system that doesn't give the governor the authority to do what he is doing, but the governor does it anyway?

Yeah that sounds like a good idea

---

Well I have no idea what would be a good solution that would give us the best chance our freedoms aren't trampled all over again. So you're saying you'd be ok with the current system as long as Abbott's powers were codified?

rgag12 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

---

You want to leave the current system in place? You mean the system that doesn't give the governor the authority to do what he is doing, but the governor does it anyway?

Yeah that sounds like a good idea

---

Well I have no idea what would be a good solution that would give us the best chance our freedoms aren't trampled all over again. So you're saying you'd be ok with the current system as long as Abbott's powers were codified?

---

The only solution is to demand Texan Republicans to protect our civil liberties and hold them accountable if they dont.

Quote:

---

Sec. 418A.052. Limitation on Certain Executive Orders, Proclamations, and Rules.

(a) This section applies only to an executive order, proclamation, or rule issued under this chapter that has the effect of:

1. closing or limiting the operating capacity of a business or other entity;

2. mandating the wearing of a face covering; or

3. limiting surgeries or other procedures that a licensed health care professional or health care facility may perform.

(b) An executive order, proclamation, or rule described by Subsection (a) may continue for more than 30 days only if the governor during that period issues:

(1) a proclamation convening the legislature in special session that begins during that period to consider whether to modify or terminate the executive order, proclamation, or rule; or

(2) if the legislature is convened in regular or special session, a message to the legislature requesting the legislature's consideration of whether to modify or terminate the executive order, proclamation, or rule.

(c) The governor may not issue a new executive order, proclamation, or rule based on the same or a substantially similar finding as a prior executive order, proclamation, or rule that was terminated by the legislature under subsection (b).

---

I am pretty dang critical of the abuse of executive powers that occurred with Abbott, but I've read this bill pretty thoroughly and I'm not sure I see an issue with it in any way. If I've missed something glaring, please show me as I want to relay my thoughts to my representatives. The above clip of the bill seems to have a major restriction of power by itself. Governor can't extend executive orders pertaining to those three items and have them continue longer than 30 days without convening the legislature. The only thing I don't like about this section is it is unclear if under such a special session, the legislature itself is limited to only taking action on the special session item.

Broad over view of bill:

Oversight committee created that has to approve the extension of a declared emergency related to a pandemic. Committee can terminate declaration at any time that legislature is not in session. Anytime there is a disaster declaration and the legislature is in session, they can terminate at any time without Governor adding it to special considerations. The Governor may not issue a new declaration or executive order that is struck down by the committee or by the legislature that is substantially similar or based on the same substantially similar scenarios.

As always, the law of unintended consequences is alive and well, but after reading the actual bill, I think it is well written. I do wish the days were not defined as 30 and instead said 7.

Thanks for posting that. That's a good law.

country said:

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 418A.052. Limitation on Certain Executive Orders, Proclamations, and Rules.

(a) This section applies only to an executive order, proclamation, or rule issued under this chapter that has the effect of:

1. closing or limiting the operating capacity of a business or other entity;

2. mandating the wearing of a face covering; or

3. limiting surgeries or other procedures that a licensed health care professional or health care facility may perform.

(b) An executive order, proclamation, or rule described by Subsection (a) may continue for more than 30 days only if the governor during that period issues:

(1) a proclamation convening the legislature in special session that begins during that period to consider whether to modify or terminate the executive order, proclamation, or rule; or

(2) if the legislature is convened in regular or special session, a message to the legislature requesting the legislature's consideration of whether to modify or terminate the executive order, proclamation, or rule.

(c) The governor may not issue a new executive order, proclamation, or rule based on the same or a substantially similar finding as a prior executive order, proclamation, or rule that was terminated by the legislature under subsection (b).

---

I am pretty dang critical of the abuse of executive powers that occurred with Abbott, but I've read this bill pretty thoroughly and I'm not sure I see an issue with it in any way. If I've missed something glaring, please show me as I want to relay my thoughts to my representatives. The above clip of the bill seems to have a major restriction of power by itself. Governor can't extend executive orders pertaining to those three items and have them continue longer than 30 days without convening the legislature. The only thing I don't like about this section is it is unclear if under such a special session, the legislature itself is limited to only taking action on the special session item.

Broad over view of bill:

Oversight committee created that has to approve the extension of a declared emergency related to a pandemic. Committee can terminate declaration at any time that legislature is not in session. Anytime there is a disaster declaration and the legislature is in session, they can terminate at any time without Governor adding it to special considerations. The Governor may not issue a new declaration or executive order that is struck down by the committee or by the legislature that is substantially similar or based on the same substantially similar scenarios.

As always, the law of unintended consequences is alive and well, but after reading the actual bill, I think it is well written. I do wish the days were not defined as 30 and instead said 7.

---

If it's another Governor-appointed committee, no thanks. The elected legislature should oversee the orders.

Did you read the bill, or just the article? Honestly when I read the article I was expecting a document that read as if Biden himself wrote it. The actual bill is the total opposite of the tone. The elected legislature oversees the orders in 2 ways. 1st the committee is made up of elected legislators. They oversee the extension of declarations whenever the legislature is not in session. They also oversee any extension of executive orders that are not related to those specifically stated in Section Sec. 418A.052 as stated in my previous post. 2nd, executive orders pertaining to those stated in Section Sec. 418A.052 cannot extend past 30 days without a special session of all legislatures to approve the extension of those executive orders.

The Committee is not made up of Governor appointments. It is made up of:

1. The lieutenant governor;

2. The speaker of the house of representatives;

3. the chair of the Senate Committee on Finance or its succor;

4. the chair of the Senate Committee on State Affairs or its successor;

5. the chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services or its successor;

6. the chair of the Senate Committee on Education or its successor;

7. the chair of the House Committee on Appropriations or its successor;

8. the chair of the House Committee on State Affairs or its successor;

9. the chair of the House Committee on Public Health or its successor; and

10. the chair of the House Committee on Public Education or its successor

Edit:

Here is a direct link to the current version of the bill:

House Bill 3

That's better, but I don't trust the Speaker (my Rep), or the chairs that he appointed. At least they're elected, though. A huge concern I have is that it specifically lists the actions he took and put them into law. Masks are codified in this law, for instance. We just need to copy Florida.

I have not read the Florida bill so I need to catch up on it. I don't see where they codified anything into law though in our bill. The governor already had wide sweeping power in the law under the emergency power act. All of his actions over the past year were implemented under that act through executive orders. This bill restricts those powers as they pertain to pandemics and provides much more legislative oversight. I would rather have a bill that's says the Governor simply can't issue executive orders restricting freedom in any way pandemic or not, but that is not going to happen.

rgag12 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I'm curious, what would be the ideal way disasters are handled in yalls opinion?

Obviously it would've been great if Abbott said NO MASKS, NO LOCKDOWNS for 100% of the entire fiasco, but who would make decisions if you stripped away his powers?

Local governments? For most people in Texas this would be a disaster. Most local leaders are socialist democrats who would still have you muzzled and locked down even today like California and New York.

I personally wished that they'd leave the current system alone, I'd rather roll the dice and hope we have a good governor rather than take the 100% bad outcome of having local leaders decide what to do. I also wish we'd have considered something like Florida's newly passed disaster law which prohibits local governments from declaring a disaster for more than 7 days.

---

You want to leave the current system in place? You mean the system that doesn't give the governor the authority to do what he is doing, but the governor does it anyway?

Yeah that sounds like a good idea

---

Well I have no idea what would be a good solution that would give us the best chance our freedoms aren't trampled all over again. So you're saying you'd be ok with the current system as long as Abbott's powers were codified?

---

No. I'm saying curtail the governor's supposed authority by statute

The problem with listing these items out specifically in the bill is that those actions are now allowed by law. For the last year, Abbott was illegally violating our first amendment rights and closing business with the lockdowns. The legislature is now saying that's okay as long as you have oversight. They should have just voided the 1976 emergency powers act.

If that violates our rights, it doesn't matter if legislature codifies it. It still violates our rights. This doesn't change the analysis a court would do in determining if rights are violated.

They were never going to void his emergency powers. Might as well say they should abolish taxes. It's not a feasible suggestion

Those actions were already codified by law in the emergency powers act. That's my point. They were never going to do away with that act. We agree wholeheartedly in principle without question. But I view the bill as being a very good restriction on the Governor's powers.

Hypothetical:

1. Gov declares pandemic restrictions
2. State leg convenes around 30 days in and decides to let everything ride because we don't know what's going down
3. Does the governor then have indefinite reign on dictating closures and mandates thereafter? Or is there a provision making the 30 day review a repeating thing and I just missed it?

Texas State legislators will do exactly what they did to stop the illegal shutdowns and mask mandates...nothing.

Every 30 days the Legislature has to be reconvened to continue the order. One of the biggest arrows in this bill. How many times do you think people that get paid $600 for their service want to come to Austin?

Legislatures had zero authority under current law to do anything. They couldn't even take up the discussion once they came into session until 60 days had passed because of current laws. They have now taken up the process and are working toward resolutions for the problem. I know all of us are of the same political persuasion and I know all of us are probably those that are right if right, but I'm going to bow out as it appears not many people know the actual laws that are in place nor how this bill changes those laws.