b'Your Constitutional RightsBy Randy MillerDirector of the Constitutional Sheriffsand Peace Officers Association forArizona, 623-866-3544.To learn more about our constitutionsand your rights, contactme at Supremelawoftheland.comH ere we go again. Monkey Pox has been declared a Global Health Emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO), which then prompted New York, Illinois, and California to follow suit. As we approach the midterm elections, we can see how this is possibly being manipulated, as was COVID, to make emergency changes to voting laws and procedures, shut down society and implement draconian unconstitutional health restrictions. The problem is neither the federal government nor the state has the authority to declare a state of emergency and suspend any of your constitutionally protected rights. There is one section under Arizonas Constitution; Article 4, that addresses a disaster and what government is responsible for. Section 25: The legislature, in order to ensure continuity of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from disasters caused by enemy attack, shall have the power and the immediate duty to (I summarize here) assign duties of a department or agency to another agency if needed if they cant fill a vacancy, and adopt measures that are necessary for ensuring government continues to operate.As you can see, there is nothing here that grants government authority over the people, only to ensure government services continue during a disaster caused by an enemy attack. There is no other section covered in our state Constitution granting any authority over the people or to declare an emergency over anything, including a pandemic.What does our Supreme Court say? Justice Roberts clearly doesnt believe the Constitution should be consulted as written. He defers all authority to the legislature, saying: As I explained the last time the Court considered this evolving case, federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. __, __ (2020).He goes on to explain; I adhere to the view that the Constitution principally entrusts the safety, and the health of the people (*NO IT DOESNT) to the politically accountable officials of the States. But the Constitution also entrusts the protection of the peoples rights to the Judiciarynot despite judges being shielded by life tenure, but because they are. Deference, though broad, has its limits. (*All branches of government are responsible for the protection of the peoples rights, not just the court).The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic, Roberts reasoned, is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. It is also a question the Constitution has primarily delegated to politicians, which courts should normally not second-guess. That is especially true, Roberts explained, in a case like this one, in which the church is seeking emergency relief while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground. The idea that it is so clear that the restrictions are unconstitutional that the Supreme Court should step in, Roberts concluded, seems quite improbable.This is absurd!!!! Justice Roberts just stated that government has authority over your health and safety and your liberties when nothing has granted this in either Constitution; for this very reason, I say. He further showed in his statements that he believes there is no limit because it is dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Based on this, he believes that it isn\'t "probable" that the court should step in on constitutionality.There is no constitutional authority for any level of government to declare an emergency and the court is mandated to address the constitutionality of the law. The court just dismissed this very fact, instead choosing to side with governmental controls under certain circumstances without limits because it is one which the courts should not second guess. This is a failure of our system leaving no recourse for the people. Justice Roberts refers to the courts deference to legislators as experts having limits but fails to show any sign of these limits. I\'ll tell you that the limits are defined in the Constitutions and the courts have them to refer to, to decide their ruling but fail to do so.Nothing in our Constitutions grants the protection of our health, to place restrictions on any of our social activities, or grants control over our businesses without due process of law. The court in this case, and others, ignores the very premise of why government was instituted. As in the Declaration of Independence, Article 2, Section 2 of Arizonas Constitution says: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.Clearly, we have a state and federal government system that doesnt believe nor agree with this. This makes it a mandate on the people. ArizonaRealCountry.com September 2022 17'