Thoughts on the ordinance effort. I've read a great many reactions. I've sought a great many responses to the "why" question.
One of the many things I've learned, occasionally to my detriment is that to be effective and successful in politics, you have to be focused on the viable.
I get a lot of reaction that what's happened in this state is "unconstitutional." What I've never seen is a reference to where, exactly, any of this has BEEN "unconstitutional."
My position in all of this has been, from the beginning, not to give in to an emotional response about the complaints of those impacted by these mandates. My position has been, and remains, to leave "feelings" out of it.
I know the Constitution. Studied it for years, worked with it for 6 years in Olympia. Listening to those who support this ordinance, frequent claims are made regarding "constitutionality."
And with equal frequency, they have been wrong.
To determine the constitutionality of an issue, one has to find the issue and then the corresponding article or amendment.
Precedent by the Supreme Court has made it clear that restrictive requirements during pandemics or other declared emergencies are not only Constitutional, they're expected. And that's been their position for over a century.
We cannot afford the luxury of believing in dislike equaling "unconstitutional."
I get why many ordinance supporters make that claim. That claim provides justification for their opposition to mandates.
But they’re NOT “unconstitutional.” Ordinance supporters really don’t care.
As conservatives, we’re supposed to believe and uphold the Constitution. But it’s also not a malleable document, something that can be twisted into whatever you want it to be.
That’s how we got Roe v. Wade.
We all know there’s no such thing as a ghost “constitutional right to privacy.” But the Court who ruled this way, not unlike ordinance supporters, had to make one up. So they did. And the vast majority of ordinance supporters are not happy about it.
Yet, they turn around and do the exact, same, thing.
These reactions are a symptom of the failure of our education plant.
We spend no appreciable time in our schools studying this document, the underlying foundation of our country. And as a country, we all suffer from that shortcoming.
Imagine how different things would be if people had the first faintest clue as to what was actually IN that document… as opposed to what they BELIEVE is in that document.
Listening to testimony last night, I repeatedly overheard the word "discrimination."
That gets tossed around like a football, not only on this issue, but on any issue by any interest group that wants someone else, particularly in government, to feel bad about something so the interest group can get their own way.
But in THIS country, we discriminate every day of our lives. It's a matter of degree more than anything else. We eat a certain brand of bread. We drink coffee over orange juice. The military discriminates wholesale: reasons to be disqualified from enlistment include almost any medical condition, pregnancy, too tall, too short, too fat, and too skinny. Amputated limbs. Blindness. Hearing loss. Mental health issues... the list fills books of regulations and we don't give it a thought, second or otherwise.
And that’s because for purposes of ACTUAL, ILLEGAL discrimination, one has to have experienced actual discrimination based on a suspect classification.
As the attorney said last night, discrimination is only legally recognized in these areas:
• Age
• Disability
• Equal Pay/Compensation
• Genetic Information
• Harassment
• National Origin
• Pregnancy
• Race/Color
• Religion
• Retaliation
• Sex
• Sexual Harassment
• Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
There’s nothing in there about masks OR vaccination status.
As a result, claiming “discrimination” was a nonstarter. You can’t claim that which doesn’t legally exist to be a cause to promulgate an ordinance that violates state law.
The claims made in Rob’s presentation, that these mandates lacked the force of law and thus, the state has no right of preemption was lunacy. Because the people passed SJR8200, in fact, all mandates DO have the force of law.
As court after court after court has determined in this state there has been NO Constitutional violation. Repeatedly claiming that there has without making a case that extends beyond your actual dislike or other feelings is a nonstarter.
The reality the council faced last night was stark. These people were demanding that the Council actually take a step that would have violated the laws and the state constitution of Washington, a COMPLETE violation of their oaths of office and something that those on our side of the aisle have complained about frequently when applied to the political left.
Thus, we’re showing that same kind of “flexibility” that we despise in leftists and RINOs. It was much like the demands that Inslee implement the $30 car tab initiative because it passed, while many turned around and demanded that he ignore the results of the ballot box vote of the people in the SJR8200 election… which also passed, no matter how stupidly, by a 2:1 margin.
That was a vote of the people. If Inslee had built that authority out of whole cloth, then yes, that would be an issue. But he didn’t. And the ease within which the people supporting this ordinance dismiss or ignore that fact in this matter is astonishing to me.
People who support the ordinance want what they want, period. Laws be damned, Constitution be damned, and anything else in life be damned. They want to be rebels when they have no idea what “rebellion” means.
This was the biggest case of confusing motion with action that I have personally ever witnessed.
This is a perfect example of spinning your wheels. You THINK you’re getting something done mainly because you base your actions on essentially nonexistent factors that when examined provide no justification beyond your emotional “I want that” mode.
Put the shoe on the other foot. What would the reaction be if the signatures were gathered as per the Charter and the initiative in question demanded that starting immediately, every business in Clark County be at least 50% minority owned with 50% minority employees.
Such a demand actually COULD be based on the issue of “discrimination.” Of course, I get that far too often when something “bad” happens to as minority, the answer is always going to be discrimination.
But where does anyone get the idea that this county can force businesses to hire 50% minorities, or sell/give 50% of their business to minorities?
They can’t. And we all know they can’t. No more than they could implement this ordinance. And we all, including the ordinance supporters, knew they could not do it.
In spite of the many who acted like somehow, the laws and the state constitution restricting that variety of extra-legislative hijinks was absolutely within the realm of this council’s ability.
Last night’s outcome was inevitable.
And if anyone learned anything from that debacle, it SHOULD be to deal with the way things ARE, and not waste time fantasizing about the way you WANT them to be.
