Introduction
In a time of crisis, the role of the government is essential to protect citizens. During a pandemic or other crisis, the governor will be forced to make what are sometimes unpopular decisions that need to be made quickly (Weissert et al. 398). Further, the governor’s role during a pandemic is to help protect the state, its residents, and its resources. The governor fulfills this role by allowing or restricting movement across the state via interstate highways (Mintrom and O’Connor 209). This essay argues that the new proposal to limit the governor’s abilities during a crisis will make things worse. The proposal is nothing short of an abdication of sound governance, as it robs rather than strengthens the state government.
Proposed Restrictions on the Governor’s Powers
The proposal restricted the governor’s power to execute emergency measures without legislative approval. The proposed amendments prohibited him from issuing executive orders unless they were based on a written request from one or more legislature members. The change was intended to prevent Governor Abbott from acting as an autocrat during a crisis (Weissert et al. 401). It was also intended to prevent him from issuing executive orders that he deemed necessary for the state’s safety during crises, even if there were no written requests from legislators. It further states that no officer or employee of any agency shall be allowed to exercise executive power unless specifically authorized by statute.
In addition, the proposed restrictions on the governor’s powers limited his ability to suspend certain laws if necessary to ensure public safety. This restriction prevented Governor Abbott from suspending any law passed by the Texas Legislature during a pandemic (Sadiq et al. 66). In the past, governors have used their power to suspend laws passed by both houses of the state legislature to create workarounds for issues like transportation shutdowns and lack of electricity. This action has led to criticism from both sides of the aisle because it allows them to pass policies without being accountable to voters.
Moreover, the proposal restricted the governor’s power to declare martial law or suspend a state constitution if necessary to ensure public safety. The proposed amendment would have limited the governor’s ability to declare martial law and suspend certain rights, such as habeas corpus (Mintrom and O’Connor 215). It would further include his power to appoint individuals to posts within state government during an emergency. It could also have prevented him from declaring a state of disaster if no natural disaster had occurred.
The Arguments for the Restrictions
In their argument, Democrats argued that there should be more restrictions on the governor’s powers because they want to ensure that Texas is prepared for future crises. They also said that problems with the law during a crisis could cause even more problems later on down the line. The measure would have given the governor too much power, allowing him to suspend any law at will (Weissert et al. 409). This action could lead to chaos as laws are overturned mid-season and would not allow checks and balances during a crisis.
The measure would also be difficult for the legislature to pass in an emergency where there is no time for debate or deliberation. Additionally, the bill does not address the possibility of martial law being declared by the governor if necessary. It will lead to state militias being formed outside of regular military organizations, which could lead to problems when it comes to public safety as well as civil liberties violations such as police brutality.
done in as little as 1 hour
Republicans argued that limiting the governor’s power would result in unnecessary government regulations, slowing business growth. In addition, it will cause unemployment rates to rise even higher than they already are (Sadiq et al. 68). They also said that this would make things easier for criminals who want to take advantage of these laws being less strict about committing crimes without being caught. This statement translates to having fewer police officers patrolling the streets, leading to more deaths due to crime-related accidents. Further, it would include other situations where someone loses their life because there are not enough policemen protecting them.
The Proposal During the Regular Session
The proposal was approved during the regular session but was never signed into law. The governor vetoed the bill because he felt that it went too far. He argued that the measure would have given him too much power during a crisis and could have been abused by future governors (Sadiq et al. 79). However, it is clear that the Governor’s Office thought about this issue carefully and took many steps to make sure this bill did not infringe on his powers. For example, they limited his ability to suspend certain laws if necessary to ensure public safety. They also required legislative approval for emergency measures before they could be used, although they allowed him to declare martial law or suspend a state constitution if necessary.
The Subjective View of the Governor’s Authority During the Pandemic
In my opinion, I believe that the governor exceeded his authority during the pandemic and should have been more aggressive in getting help from federal officials. There are several reasons for this. First, he did not follow his own state’s procedures when issuing an executive order on January 8th regarding quarantine zones around affected areas (Sadiq et al. 70). Secondly, he did not issue an executive order regarding mandatory quarantines until January 23rd, which was too late for people who had already had their home decontaminated and were still hoping to return to their homes (Sadiq et al. 71). Thirdly, he did not follow up with individuals who were quarantined by sending them information on how they could get back into their homes. He did not inform them where they could go if they wanted to leave their houses without being penalized by law enforcement officials.
In addition, he had no legal authority to do anything more than he did and was overly aggressive in his efforts. He further did not communicate with Texas citizens during this crisis. He did not make himself available to the public in any meaningful way and instead chose to release information through social media and press releases (Sadiq et al. 75). This lack of accessibility left many Texans feeling disenfranchised and unvalued by their government leaders.
according to your instructions
Conclusion
In conclusion, Governor Greg Abbott’s response to the COVID virus outbreak exemplifies effective leadership. First, by not publicizing his actions and protocols for stopping the spread of this highly contagious illness, he was able to prevent mass panic from diluting his efforts. Without this secrecy, many people would have panicked and tried to flee the state in hopes of finding a safer place outside of Texas. Those fleeing Texans likely would have been carrying the virus with them, resulting in even more deaths than in Texas during this outbreak. Therefore, during a public health crisis, it is important to ensure that all citizens are protected from doing anything harmful to them or others. There must be a limit to protecting people’s rights in emergencies.
Works Cited
Mintrom, Michael, and Ruby O’Connor. “The Importance of Policy Narrative: Effective Government Responses to Covid-19.” Policy Design and Practice vol. 3. no. 3, 2020: pp. 205-227. Web.
Sadiq, Abdul-Akeem et al. “Crisis Leadership During COVID-19: The Role of Governors in the United States.” International Journal of Public Leadership, vol. 17 no. 1, 2020: pp. 65-80. Web.
Weissert, C. S. et al. “Governors in Control: Executive Orders, State-Local Preemption, and the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism vol. 51. no. 3, 2021: pp. 396-428. Web.