WHAT DOES OUTLAWING CITIES SETTING $15 HOURLY MINIMUM WAGE HAVE TO DO WITH OUTLAWING BEASTIALITY?

To repeat the blog headliner:  What does outlawing cities setting $15 hourly minimum wage have to do with outlawing beastiality?

According to Judge Richard A. Frye of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, NOTHING! and consequently Frye (on June 2, 2017; the suit having been filed on March 20, 2017) invalidated the minimum wage aspect, as being unconstitutional(re:  the Ohio constitution), in Ohio Senate Bill 331 passed by the "lame-duck" Ohio General Assembly (OGA) on December 7, 2016.

The suit was filed by 50 Ohio cities in defense of the Home Rule provisions of Ohio law (some of whom joined in on the litigation in order to specifically defend enactment of the $15 hourly minimum wage at the city level.  (See this LINK for other Home Rule victories/defeats)

The Ohio legislature in a clear example of "we have met the enemy and it is us" provided the perfect vehicle to the listed cities to challenge the Legislature's attack on Home Rule, in general, and, specifically, Cleveland's legislation setting a $15 hourly minimum wage for the jurisdiction of Cleveland city government by including in S.B. 331 the following diverse and unrelated (for the most part) topics:

From a Google search:

As far as the SCPR can determine, Cleveland is the only Ohio city who has passed $15 hourly minimum wage laws.

Back on November, 2015, Ward 7 councilman John Mariol expressed interest in bringing the legislation to Canton and thereby into the Stark County political mix.

Ohio U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown is part of a Democratic Party sponsored policy initiative:   "Raise the Wage Act of 2017" to make the $15 hourly minimum wage "the law of the land."

The objective of the 49 other Ohio cities joining in the Franklin County based lawsuit obviously defending Home Rule.

One of the more disturbing phenomenons of  S.B. 331 being enacted  is summed up succinctly by past Ohio Supreme Court chief justice C. William O'Neill:

Even more unsettling for Stark Countians is that three of Stark County's legislators (i.e. Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring; all Republicans [Democrat Stephen Slesnick voted "no"]) voted for the illegality.

If there is any consolation for the Stark County legislators is that they are but part of a gaggle of lawless legislators in that 20 other Republican senators and 53 other Republican representatives who in Sarah Palin's words "went rogue" in disrespect for the rule of law.

One of the recurring themes of The Stark County Political Report has been that many if not nearly all of our elected officials from the White House down through the local boards of education take initiatives, pass laws and do other official acts that send a message:   "the rule of law" be damned.

At play in Beckley v. Ohio was Article II, Section 15D, to wit:

A primary reason that the likes of Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring love catch-all legislation is that they can vary their reasons for having voted yes or no on a given bill and thereby avoid be held accountable on their respective positions on matters like Home Rule and the $15 hourly minimum wage.

To be perfectly blunt about the effort to hide, Frye's decision in Bexley v. Ohio (see the entire decision embedded in PD article at this LINK) makes those voting for the bill "lawless legislators."

With rank-and-file citizens going more and more often rogue and lawless when they find it "inconvenient" to their personal interest to comply with this or that law, it is unacceptably hypocritical for the likes of Oelslager, Hagan and Schuring and their colleagues and indeed all similar acting officials (e.g. Stark County probate court judge Dixie Park being overturned on constitutional grounds by the Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals, Judge Frank Forchione in ordering fine money diverted from the Stark County treasury to a Massachusetts civic effort [later changed his mind]) to expect the respect for and compliance for the "rule of law" when it suits them.

The SCPR recognizes that there is certainly is a legitimate difference of opinion whether a given government official's act is lawful or not.

However, when such officials are determined to have acted unlawfully; acknowledgment and very "public" apologies and a commitment to re-direct actions in a lawful manner are in order going forward.

Moreover, in an egregious context (e.g. the Dixie Park situation), the offending official should resign.

How often does even one of the four of the foregoing repentances happen?

And to the degree that acknowledgment, apology and re-direction or resignation does not occur; make no mistake about it, these government officials make themselves by virtue of their lawless political example a key part of growing lawlessness in America!

Another example of:  "we have met the enemy [to our democratic-republican system of government] and it is us," no?