The Plot

The editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’s take on the plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is much like mine:

Six men have been charged by federal prosecutors for allegedly planning to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, apparently in an insane plot against overreaching state government. Seven others, linked to a militia group, are facing state charges. The details in an FBI affidavit suggest these people were serious.

The federal court filing says a group of men scoped out Ms. Whitmer’s vacation home and estimated police response times. They built an explosive, wrapped it in pennies, and tested it “in a clearing surrounded by human silhouette targets.” One of them said he bought a stun gun recently. He referred to the Governor as a “tyrant” and spoke of taking her to a secure location for “trial.”

This is tin-hat crazy, and authorities have a duty to act when basement conspiracy chatter becomes overt acts toward a criminal violation. Threats against public officials in particular need to be taken seriously in these polarized times. Recall the shooting by a Bernie Sanders supporter that grievously wounded GOP Rep. Steve Scalise in 2017.

Thankfully, police, undercover agents and the U.S. Justice Department were onto the plot in the Whitmer case. Credit as well to their confidential sources, one identified as a disaffected militia member. In June conspirators met in a basement “accessed through a trap door hidden under a rug,” the court filing says. Cellphones were collected beforehand to prevent monitoring. Yet a confidential source was wearing a wire.

Ms. Whitmer has exceeded her legal authority in the pandemic, and often in arrogant fashion. But the recourse for her critics is politics and the law, not violence and kidnapping. The Michigan Supreme Court proved that point last week by ruling that Ms. Whitmer violated state law in redeclaring the same pandemic emergency after 28 days without the consent of the Legislature.

Sadly, to some degree that is begging the question. The Michigan Supreme Court’s unanimous decision makes it clear that Gov. Whitmer has abused her power and should be impeached. Under Michigan Law the Michigan House of Representatives has the sole authority to do that. Why hasn’t the Michigan House begun impeachment proceedings? Does anyone seriously believe that if the present Republican majority were to be replaced by Democrats that the new Democratic majority would impeach Gov. Whitmer? Said another way, both the governor and the legislature are abusing their power. And what would the political solution be?

And that’s why we have entered such dangerous territory.

9 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    I think I’ve used the term “tyrant” in referring to the Illinois Governor, partly in jest (the tyranny of the wimp), but partly just as a description of a concept recognized in Roman law. The dictatorship was empowered by the consent of the Senate in times of crisis as a temporary necessity, and once the dictator exceeded the scope of the consent given, particularly the time limits, he becomes a tyrant.

    I’m content to let the courts resolve this issue, but they sure are taking their time. And by “they,” I mean the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the judiciary.

  • Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let us see him enforce it.

    I’m skeptical of the court’s ability to resolve the issue when the governor and the legislature collude in abdicating their responsibilities and abusing their power.

  • steve Link

    Was there a second decision. The one I found was the decision cited below where they found by 4-3 decisions that the 2 laws used by Whitmer were unconstitutional. Impeaching people for using glass later found unconstitutional means we would end up impeaching a lot of people.

    https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/02/michigan-supreme-court-rules-against-whitmer-emergency-powers/3596332001/

    Steve

  • Impeaching people for using glass later found unconstitutional means we would end up impeaching a lot of people.

    As Chesterton put it, it is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.

  • Greyshambler Link

    Tracked by the FBI for two months and video recorded:
    “I don’t know, boys, we gotta do something,” Fox says in the video, which has since been preserved by the FBI, the outlet reported. “Give me some ideas of what we can do.”
    And I’ll bet they did.

  • steve Link

    “As Chesterton put it, it is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”

    So there was no second decision? In that case if the courts found that the laws were unconstitutional not sure why they impeach her. It was the legislature that put the laws on the books.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    There were two rulings: one was that the Governor exceeded her powers when she renewed emergency orders past the 28 days authorized by the Emergency Management Act. After 28 days, she needed a resolution approved from both legislative bodies agreeing to an extension. This law was not challenged to be unconstitutional and wasn’t ruled unconstitutional.

    The Governor also utilized emergency powers under a second law, the Emergency Powers of Governor Act which was ruled unconstitutional because it was entirely unrestricted, the Governor could take whatever action she found reasonable and necessary with regard to any emergency she declared for however long she desired. It was ruled unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power (power to enact such rules as reasonable and necessary) to the Governor.

    The state public health department can still issue rules under public health statutes that are more limited.

  • Mark K Logan Link

    It appears the 28 day extension was something that could be done with the consent of the legislature. Is not declining to use their power to impeach on this matter defacto consent? The court’s ruling that she should be impeached is perhaps outside of the judicial branch’s purview. IMO the judicial should limit themselves to saying she could be impeached, not should.

  • Qui tacet consentire videtur (“silence signifies consent”) is a principle of continental European law, not of ours. If the law says that the legislature must give their consent, that means express consent. Note the “pocket veto”.

Leave a Comment