Oh I read it.
Reading does not equal comprehension.
It was snarky and arrogant. . .
True.
. . . like I'm supposed to start the political movement that topples the Illinois Democratic machine instead of bitching on an Internet forum...
Stranger things have happened, but if that's what you took from it then maybe you need to examine why YOU feel that way. Because that's not what I wrote.
I voted in every election since I was 18. When I realized after living in IL for 43 years that my vote was meaningless, I left.
So you gave up instead of fighting. It happens, and it's OK. Not everyone is born to be a fighter.
Again, I can't say I understand the "exception you pointed out" which is just a sentence. Your link leads to pages of legalese.
Ahhh! Now we're getting somewhere. If you had started with a statement that you don't understand, I'd have been happy to help you understand.
But if you're trying to tell me the people that ignore federal immigration law and federal marijuana law really care about the legality of these mandates I can only shake my head.
Not at all. I'm telling you that before you get all huffy about something you don't understand, maybe you should do the Conservative thing: take a step back and figure out what actually happened, what it actually means, and how it impacts you, society, and liberty.
So let me try to help you as to what all that 'legalese' (it really wasn't) is trying to say:
First: Title 77 of the Illinois Administrative Code is the section of the Admin Code that governs Public Health. The Illinois Administrative Code is all the implementing rules that the different agencies must follow, so since Title 77 is over Public Health, it's what everyone looks to for health related matters.
Second: In the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act, the Legislature gave the Executive the ability to create emergency rules, in addition to the normally slow, methodical, and plodding rulemaking procedures. These emergency rules stipulate that you can put a rule in place for 150 days, but you cannot put the
same rule in place more than once in a 24-month period. However, you can work through the normal rulemaking process while the emergency rule is in effect.
Third: In order to create an emergency rule, there must BE an emergency, declared by the Governor. So we look to the Illinois Emergency Management Act (IEMA). IEMA states that the governor can declare an emergency for an open-ended list of reasons (that is, it's not an exhaustive list). Among them is epidemic. If he declares an emergency, then he has certain emergency powers for 30 days. After which, THOSE POWERS CEASE, BUT THE EMERGENCY IS STILL VALID. This is important.
Fourth: Taken together, this means that the governor can declare an emergency, have 30 days of emergency powers, then create a rule that lasts for 150 days. This gives you a total of 180 days to work with.
Lastly: If you look at the same part of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act that gives emergency rulemaking authority, you will see that it exempts matters of public health (that is, Title 77). Because of the nature of those emergencies, the executive agencies can introduce multiple emergency rules until either a final rule is completed in accordance with the Act, the Governor ends the emergency, or the Legislature declares the emergency is ended (which is not in the current law, I'm just pointing out that they actually could do this at any time).
NOW: I will now pivot over to why that Illinois Policy link you gave doesn't say what you think it says (or what they want you to think it says). What Illinois Policy Center wants you to think it says is that this whole thing is horribly illegal. Here's what it actually says:
(1) There's an informal opinion drafted in 2001 that says the Governor can't do this. Several of these laws have been amended since 2001, including to plug the issues the 2001 AG brought up. These were all minor technical administrative fixes that didn't garner any big hubbub at the time because nobody cares about the "little" details. (Oh wait, they're not so little after all, are they?)
(2) Darren Bailey petitioned the court to grant an injunction against the Governor's order. The court granted it. For him only. Bailey then realized he pleaded wrong and asked to file an amended lawsuit, because he wanted EVERYONE exempted, not just him. The Appeals Court said, "No." (Which is not in the story you linked, that's a more recent development in late July, because it takes time to work through the courts.) Before that no, however, the Governor asked the Supreme Court to intervene, as is his right to ask, and the Supreme Court said, "No." Which means it stays with the appellate court (who then issued their ruling of "no" to Bailey).
So let me give you the abridged version that doesn't come through clearly to people who aren't used to reading court cases (which is most of us; once you learn that skill, it really, really changes how you view the news):
BAILEY: This rule fucking sucks and there's a hurdle he hasn't met yet here.
DISTRICT COURT: Ok... you're technically correct in this area, but there are a dozen other areas you failed to cite so we'll grant you your order just to get you the fuck out of our court. It applies only to you.
BAILEY: Wait wait! That's not what I meant! I wanted everyone exempted! Here, here! I found this Memo that backs me up! Appeals Court, let me go back to the District and try again! Please vacate the order so I can start over!
GOVERNOR: Supreme Court, can we just fucking end this buffoonery now since we know this will get to you eventually?
SUPREME COURT: Oh fuck no. Ya'll finish having your tantrum down there. Don't make this my problem.
APPEALS COURT: Bailey? Yeah, fucking no. You don't get 2 bites at the apple. If that's what you wanted to plead, you should have fucking done it the first time around. Either you or your lawyer is an idiot.
BAILEY: Fine! I'm appealing to the Supreme Court!
SUPREME COURT: Are we going to put him on the docket? Uh... sure, I guess. But make him go through the normal proceedings, just like we told the governor. So we'll see you in... I dunno... January, maybe? Expect a ruling by next July. (Unless, of course, there's a final rule in place by then in which case the whole thing is moot and we don't rule on hypotheticals so... muwahahahaahahahaaha!)