HEY,
HEY, GOOD
HEY, GOOD EVENING, ALL. WE'LL GET TO THE WEATHER IN JUST
A FEW MINUTES, BUT WE WANT
TO START WITH SOME NEWS TODAY.
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD TEXAS
OPENED UP NO MORE MARZOOK
MANDATE OR DINING RULES ENFORCED
BY THAT STATE'S GOVERNMENT.
IT'S ONE OF FIVE STATES
THAT HAVE OR WILL IN THEIR
MANDATES. BUT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD
OF THE LOCAL ANGLE TO THIS. LAST
NIGHT, THE CITY OF RAMSAY IN THE
NORTHWEST METRO VOTED TO STOP
ENFORCING THE MASK MANDATE
AND THEIR CITY. THAT'S COMING
FROM THE STATE. THERE'S
A PROBLEM WITH THAT, THOUGH.
THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID TO DO
THIS, IT WILL BE ILLEGAL.
HERE'S CHRIS IN WHAT SEEMED MORE
LIKE A SUPREME COURT HEARING
TIMES. THE REMZI CITY COUNCIL
MEETING TUESDAY NIGHT BECAME
THE LATEST POLITICAL FORUM. LIKE
TO WELCOME EVERYBODY
HERE TONIGHT ON THE
CONSTITUTION, BANALITY
CONSTITUTION, BANALITY OF GOVERNOR WALLACE'S MASK
MANDATE AND IS IN MY OPINION
THAT THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER IS
CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
THE BILL OF RIGHTS REGULATES
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
CAN DO TO RESIDENTS, COUNCIL
MEMBERS RYAN HENCHMAN
AND CHELSEE HOWL INTRODUCED
A RESOLUTION STATING THE CITY
WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE STATE
MARZOOK MANDATE AND THE COUNCIL
APPROVED IT BY A VOTE OF FOUR
TO THREE. HOW OLD COMPARED WAS
HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER TO THE LIKES
OF WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE?
AND JAPANESE INTERNMENT CAMPS
IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE
WORLD?
WORLD?
WORLD? >>
WORLD? >> WE HAVE NEVER PUT ENTIRE
POPULATIONS OF COUNTRIES OR
STATES IN MASK'S. WE HAVE NOT
COVERED THEIR ABILITY TO BREATHE
AND RESTRICTED THEIR BREATHING.
THERE'S NO PRECEDENT FOR THIS.
HOW CAN THAT NOT BE CONSIDERED
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH?
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH? >> OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND RESIDENTS DISAGREED. IT
ALREADY IS SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT TO SAY THAT STATES CAN
DO THIS. BUT THEN SECONDLY, EVEN
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE
TRUE, THIS IS NOT
THE APPROPRIATE MEANS OR TRYING
TO FIGHT THAT ITEM WHETHER YOU
PASS IT OR DON'T PASS IT, IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING AND BELIEF
THAT YOU CANNOT DIRECT YOUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE TO NOT
ENFORCE THE LAW.
>> I COULDN'T STOP COUGHING
IN MY LUNGS. HURT PRETTY BAD.
RAMZI EARMARK KUZMA SAID MONDAY
WAS HIS FIRST DAY BACK AFTER
BATTLING COVID-19. HE CONSIDERED
LAST NIGHT'S VOTE PARTICULARLY
HARSH CONSIDERING WHAT HE JUST
WENT THROUGH.
WENT THROUGH. >> OR IT BECOMES A PROBLEM IF
THE PLAYERS START TO NOT ABIDE
BY THE LAW, YOU KNOW, AND THINGS
OPEN UP . THAT'S WHERE I THINK
IT COULD GET HAIRY IN THAT OPENS
THIS UP . SO I DON'T KNOW
LIABILITIES THAT I DON'T REALLY
KNOW ABOUT YET, HE SAID.
>> FOR NOW, THE RESOLUTION HAS
NO TEETH TO ENFORCE. IT WOULD BE
TO BREAK THE LAW. COUNCIL
MEMBERS WHO INTRODUCED
THE RESOLUTION COULDN'T BE
REACHED TODAY, BUT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE COULD BE
REACHED SAYING, QUOTE, EVERY
MINNESOTAN DESERVES TO FEEL SAFE
IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND IT'S
EVERY MINNESOTANS RESPONSIBILITY
TO STOP THE SPREAD OF COVID-19.
OTHER JURISDICTIONS ACROSS
MINNESOTA HAVE RECOGNIZED
THE LEGAL AND PUBLIC
HEALTH RATIONALE FOR THE
GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
AND PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS
AGREE ON THE IMPORTANCE
OF WEARING A MASK TO PROTECT
ONESELF AND EACH OTHER. THESE
EXECUTIVE ORDERS TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER THE MEASURES PASSED BY ANY
LOWER UNIT OF GOVERNMENT. SO
GENOLA THE COUNCIL APPROVED ONE
THING AND THE MAYOR IS BASICALLY
TELLING ME THAT NOTHING'S
CHANGED. ALTHOUGH ONE COUNCIL
MEMBER MADE IT CLEAR SHE WAS NOT
AGAINST WEARING A MASK
FOR SCIENTIFIC REASONS. THE SAME
FOR OTHER PEOPLE. SHE SAID SHE
IS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
FORCING PEOPLE TO DO
THAT INSIDE. THAT SAID,
THE MAYOR TOLD ME HE'S BEEN
OVERWHELMED WITH PEOPLE REACHING
OUT TO HIM TODAY IN SUPPORT
OF WHAT HE THINKS AND SORT
OF AGAINST THAT RESOLUTION. ALL
RIGHT. MAKES SENSE. AND PRIVATE
BUSINESSES AND RAMSAY CAN CHOOSE
TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. RIGHT? YOU
CAN'T JUST GO WITH A PRIVATE
BUSINESS, CAN SAY WHEN WE SAY
YOU'VE GOT TO WEAR A MASK. NO,
YOU HAVE TO WEAR A MASK.
IT'S STATE LAW INSIDE ANY
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. >> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT .
BUT SO COULDN'T THE COUNCIL HAVE
TAKEN OUR ISSUE TO THE COURTS
LIKE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE VOTING
ON IT AND A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
IS THE PLACE TO MAKE A BIG
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT. >> THEY COULD HAVE MADE IT IN A
DIFFERENT WAY. YEAH, I MEAN,
THEIR ARGUMENT AND THE
RESOLUTION WERE KIND OF TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY WERE JUST
ARGUING WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND
ANY CITY RESOURCES, ANY MONEY OR
SOMETHING THAT SOME OF US DON'T
REALLY AGREE WITH . THAT SAID,
THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID EXACTLY
WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU SAID IF
YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM. HE SAID IF
YOU GOT A PROBLEM, YOU SHOULD
TAKE IT UP WITH THE COURTS