PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS - AS I AM ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING TOTALLY UNEXPECTED.

Can an Executive Order stop the Democrat/Homosexual's Phony Marriage?

----------------------------------------

Can anyone show me where it says in any Iowa Code that Bob Vander Platts cannot stop this Homosexual/Democrat scourge with an Executive Order?
Can anyone show me where it says in the Iowa Constitution that Bob Vander Platts cannot stop this Democrat/Homosexual scourge with an Executive Order?

The Iowa Constitution says the Governor ...
Execution of laws. SEC. 9. He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

The worthless OPINION of the (less-supreme-than-anyone-else) Monkey Judges in Des Moines is NOT Law!
And those Monkey Judges do NOT make Law!
The Opinion of the Monkey Judges is not a Decision ... and it is not a Law!
It is just an Opinion!

It is the 'Reversal Mind-Set' of the Homosexual/Democrats that forbids the use of an Executive Order to stop this Coup d'etat against the People of Iowa by the Democrat/Homosexuals!

Not the Iowa Constitution!
Not any Iowa Codes!

Here are two websites you need to confirm this ...

This is the official and up-to-date website of the Constitution of the State of Iowa.
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html

This is the official website for the Codes of Iowa.
http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ar/iac?f=templates&fn=default.htm

----------------------------------------

I have searched through the Iowa Codes and Iowa Administrative Codes for two days, and there is no mention of the Powers of the Governor's Executive Orders!
It appears that whoever is in power at the time, decides what Executive Orders the Governor can and cannot issue!
There is no set of rules for Executive Orders of the Governor of Iowa!
Look for yourself!
Search In Vain!
There is nothing there!
It is up to whoever is in the driver's seat!

Now, that I have said this. The Homosexual/Democrats will trot out some bogus interpretations, and/or some new online information
[quickly added to the State site] which will give them the appearance of being authorized to enact a Coup d'etat against the People of Iowa.
And, those scum are elected 'officials' of Iowa?
HELL NO!
Those are Demotopes!
Demotopiates!
Creatures of Demotopia!
NOT Iowans of the Real Iowa!

----------------------------------------

Here is a website about this issue. It gives you the chance to read the Executive Orders from recent years.

Full text of recent Executive Orders of Iowa Governors.
http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/law-library/govexecorders/?searchterm=executive%20orders

----------------------------------------

When The Democrat/Homosexuals squawk their putrid party-line such as ... “The governor of Iowa cannot stay or overturn a decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa
by an executive order. This is a basic fact of how America's democracy works that most people learned in their high school government class."

What they are really saying is:
1. We paid a lot of money for that worthless and powerless ‘Opinion’ from those Judge-Whores ... and we insist that you consider it to be a ‘decision’ and legally binding ...
because it suits our deviated purposes! That is the basic fact!
2. Most people didn’t give a crap about school government classes to begin with. That is the basic fact!
3. The Homosexual/Democrats want to pretend that individual states do not have different power structures according to their own constitutions -- and therefore are not subject to the decisions that occur in other states. This is true, no matter how much the Democrat/Homosexuals want to pretend (and insist) that anything they do, in any state, must be Universally Accepted Everywhere By All Of Their Slaves! That is the basic fact!
4. Did the Homosexual/Democrats quote any Title and Subtitles and Rules? Hell No! There are none! It is just made up at the time by whoever is in power, and limited only by the history of such actions. And, by whether or not they succeeded in the past, and will they succeed this time?
In short, it is a Political Gamble and a Game with no rules except - will it work or not! If it looks like it could work, based upon the history of such attempts, then go ahead and gamble that it will! That is the basic fact!
5. Since we Democrat/Homosexuals are being paid a lot of money to kill all Morality and Decency in Iowa (already divided and easily conquered because all churches here war against each other), we do not want anyone to spoil it for us! So we say it is not possible! We say it cannot be done! We insist that our words and our demands be Law and Rule and Dominance! That is the basic fact!

And I say - I have to think of the Little Old Ladies at my church - before I answer that.

----------------------------------------

Of course the Monkey-Judges-for-Hire (less-supreme-than-anyone-else) will bray and bleat and cry and freak like demented jackasses, if anyone issues an Executive Order that infringes upon their profitable prostitutions!

The Homosexual/Democrats will insist that the Monkey Judges work for their money, and therefore denounce and declare illegal any attempt to save the Human Species here in Iowa!

And all the time, no one will give a damn about the Will of the People!

The ‘People’ are supposed to be controlled, and mollified. The 'People' are supposed to be muted, and confused, and disabled by the medias of the Democrat/Homosexuals -- the Grotesque TV, the Filthy Monkey Bands on the Radio, and especially by the twisted and lying Iowa Newsrags (from Hell)!

----------------------------------------

Anyone who says that the Iowa Constitution does not give the Governor the power to intervene in this attack against Iowa Humans is dead wrong! It does not say he cannot protect Iowa Human beings from this dastardly attack. In fact it demands that he protect the People of the State of Iowa from harm and their enemies! And that means the Homosexual/Democrats, Madams Gronstal and
Murphy, Tim Gill, Quiver the whimpy governor, etc.

In this farce of their phony marriages the Democrat/Homosexual lackeys say "We expect duly-elected county recorders to comply with the Iowa Constitution as interpreted unanimously by the Iowa Supreme Court, the highest court in Iowa."

Translation:
We, the Homosexual/Democrats who have foisted this atrocity upon all of you defenseless Humans, and who are enjoying this ever so much -- and are basking in the queer glory of it nationwide -- as the Democrat/Homosexuals everywhere send us messages of --

"Money well spent!" and "Now, that's a Whorehouse to my liking!"

-- demand that you accept our phony domination of all of you, acquiesce to our terms of your surrender, whatever they may be, remain docile and servile as we rape your state before your very eyes, and you had better not complain or oppose our great evilness!

OR WE WILL GET MAD!
AND POUT!
AND STAMP OUR FEET!
AND CRY!
AND ATTACK YOU AGAIN, IN EVEN MORE HORRIBLE WAYS!
Which we are planning to do anyway.

And I say - I have to think of the Little Old Ladies at my church - before I answer that.

***********************************************
***********************************************

But ..........
Don't just listen to me ..........

Here is another common sense response to the twisted intentions of the Homosexual/Democrats and their attempted Coup d'etat against the Humans of Iowa ... which has split this state into The Real Iowa and the guttural Demo-Iowa.

This is from the website called ReviveTheRepublic.
http://www.revivetherepublic.com/

Article follows:
http://www.revivetherepublic.com/PDF%20files/Straight%20Answers%20to%20Iowa's%20Decision%20on%20Homosexual%20Marriage.pdf

Q & A on the recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court concerning Marriage
by Attorney Kerry Lee Morgan, April 9, 2009

On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that Iowa’s law providing that “Only a
marriage between a male and a female is valid” was unconstitutional, contrary to the equal
privileges clause of Iowa’s Constitution. What does this opinion mean? How should we think
about it? What should be do? The opinion may be found at:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/090403_Iowa_Gay_Marriage_Ruling.pdf

What did the Court actually say?
The Court only declared Iowa law, section 595.2 unconstitutional. That section provided that
“Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” The court said this requirement was
unconstitutional because it did not treat homosexual persons and heterosexual persons the same
in terms of marriage. The Court said that Iowa’s Constitution requires the law to treat and
protect both persons equally.

Is the Court’s decision itself, Constitutional?
Article XII, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution. says that: “This constitution shall be the supreme
law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void.” The Iowa Supreme Court
has the judicial power to declare section 595.2 void. The Court’s decision may be wrong, but it
still has the judicial power to declare state laws void which are contrary to the Constitution of
Iowa.

Is any part of the Courts’s opinion Unconstitutional?
Yes. The judicial power of the Iowa Supreme Court does not include the power to require the
“remaining statutory language” of Iowa’s marriage licensing act to be “interpreted and applied in
a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”
(Opinion, p. 68). That part of the opinion is dicta, meaning it is not necessary for the opinion.
But more importantly, that part of the opinion usurps the Constitutional power of the Governor.
The local Polk County Board of Commissioners and/or Governor has the power to interpret and
apply the “remaining statutory language,” not the Supreme Court. The State Legislature has the
Constitutional power to enact laws including the power to decide if it will alter or modify the
licensing of marriage in Iowa. The Supreme Court of Iowa does not possess this legislative
power. It does not have the Constitutional or judicial power to make law.

By usurping the Constitutional power of the Governor and Legislature, and commandeering the
authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners, the Supreme Court of Iowa acted
unconstitutionally. It acted contrary to the separation of powers doctrine which is designed to
prevent any branch from exercising the power of any other branch. As such, neither the
Governor nor the Legislature are bound to take any notice whatsoever, of this part of the Court”s
“opinion.”

What should I encourage the Governor to do?
The Governor ought not follow the Court’s unconstitutional directive that “gay and lesbian
people” are entitled to “full access to the institution of civil marriage.” He has a Constitutional
duty to defend his branch of the Iowa government from the usurpation of the Iowa Supreme
Court. It does not matter what he believes about homosexual persons and marriage in this
context. What is important on this point, is that he defend the Constitutional principle of
separation of powers and that he defend his branch of government from the Supreme Court’s
usurpation thereof.

But What Should He Do about Homosexual Marriage?
If he is not willing to defend his Constitutional authority to interpret and apply the law, then he
probably will not be willing to grab this hot potato. We must recover the rule of law first if we
are to ever hope to recover particular rules such as those governing marriage. Yet, if he believes,
after his own independent Constitutional analysis, that the Court’s decision voiding section 595.2
is a legal error, then he should announce that while the decision binds the parties, the Governor
will not lend any of his office or branch to enforce that erroneous decision. Since the Court
depends entirely on the executive branch to enforce its decisions, the effect of the Governor’s
statement is that the opinion becomes unenforceable and merely a legal oddity. Marriage
remains as it was before the decision of the Court.

On the other hand, if the Governor agrees with the Court’s opinion that section 595.2 violates the
Iowa Constitution, then his branch should implement that decision (not the unconstitutional
aspect thereof noted above). He would say, “OK, I agree with the Court that section 595.2
violates the Iowa Constitution and I will not enforce any marriage licensing law that is limited to
a man and women.” He would also say that the opinion binds the parties, which in this case is
the Polk County Register/Clerk.

Of course, he should also declare that the core and foundation of Iowa’s entire marriage licensing
statute is, in fact and law, the proposition that marriage is by definition between a male and
female. Since the Court has voided that foundation and core, he cannot see how any marriage
license can be issued and the whole licensing scheme is now in doubt. As such, he should
declare that Iowa has no authority to issue a marriage license to anyone at all and call upon the
Legislature to decide what it will do if anything in response.

Yet, if the Governor thinks he has no power in this area, then it may fall to the Polk County
Board of Commissioners and County Lawyers to run with the ball. They should file a motion to
reconsider and clarify in the 21 day period. They should challenge the authority of the Iowa
Supreme Court to require the issuance of a marriage license as stated in its opinion under
remedies.

Well, then, how can someone get married in either Polk County or in Iowa?
People can get married as they have always gotten married. Persons desiring to be married may
be married in other states, foreign states, or publicly hold themselves out in Iowa as married
according to the common law which is limited to marriage between a man and women. The
Court's decision has nothing to do with common law marriage and its “independent research” on
this question (Opinion, p. 68) suggesting that no other basis exists for civil marriage is both dicta,
as well as beyond the power of a Court as noted above. Courts do not undertake independent
research of legal questions. That is a legislative and executive function. (Nor does Iowa's
reliance on common law marriage implicate footnote 24 of the Court’s opinion). As a matter of
fact, Iowa already recognizes common law marriages. They are called “Nonstatutory
Solemnization of Marriage”

OK, What Is a Nonstatutory Solemnization of Marriage?
I am glad you asked. In rendering its decision, the Court took no position concerning any other
section of Iowa’s marriage licensing law. It let stand the State’s claim that marriage is a civil
contract and may impose age requirements. But most importantly, the Court never addressed
Iowa Code section 595.11 which preserves the common law basis for marriage.

That section states:
“595.11 NONSTATUTORY SOLEMNIZATION -- FORFEITURE.
Marriages solemnized, with the consent of parties, in any manner other than that
prescribed in this chapter, are valid; but the parties, and all persons aiding or abetting
them, shall pay to the treasurer of state for deposit in the general fund of the state the sum
of fifty dollars each; but this shall not apply to the person conducting the marriage
ceremony, if within fifteen days after the ceremony is conducted, the person makes the
required return to the county registrar.”

Note that the law refers to “marriages solemnized.” It does not refer to civil unions. Section
595.11 is clearly intended to preserve and protect the common law means of marrying;, i.e,
marrying without a license from the State or requiring that the parties register the marriage.
Thus, at least in Polk County Iowa, persons may marry pursuant to the common law and if they
desire the state to recognize that marriage, they may at their discretion, register their marriage.
But we must remember it is a marriage that is being registered. It is a marriage solemnized
according to the common law.

Can Homosexuals Have a Solemnized Marriage?
No. Why not? We must naturally inquire if homosexual persons may enter into a solemnized
marriage and thus have the ability to register that arrangement with the County Register or Clerk.
The answer is that common law marriages are recognized according to the rules of the common
law. The rules of the common law are a function of the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” as
that legal term is employed in our Declaration of Independence. That document, in turn
establishes that the legal basis of all American Statehood, and equally of Iowa’s statehood, its
Constitution and law, are all likewise grounded in the law of nature. It is this law of nature–rules
binding over the globe, under all circumstances and through all time–that reflects the legal basis
of section 595.11 Non-statutory Solemnization of Marriages. It is also this law of nature, that
reflects the institution of marriage, pre-existing Iowa’s codification of marriage licensing rules
into its law.

The law of nature established from the beginning of time as an incontrovertible legal rule, that
marriage is valid only between a male and female. Since the law of nature was adopted as a legal
proposition by the original thirteen colonies to form the basis of state constitution and law, the
proposition that marriage is valid only between a man and woman is likewise the law of the land.
And of course, Iowa’s admission into the Union on equal footing with the original states, renders
these propositions binding on the people and government of Iowa, as a matter of law.
Thus, if homosexual persons purport to enjoy Iowa’s recognition of a Nonstatutory
Solemnization of Marriage under section 595.11, the law of nature laid down at the founding of
the Country and upon which Iowa itself as a state is admitted, is itself the legal justification for
the differing treatment between homosexual and heterosexual persons. It is, by rough analogy,
the legal equivalent of the “legislature’s rationale” justifying the difference.

Won’t the Iowa Supreme Court just void section 595.11 the same way they voided section 595.2?
While it is true that a Tyrant respects no law other than its own, the question is rather, does any
of the Court’s equal privileges logic concerning section 595.2 apply to section 595.11? The
answer is “No.” How can that be?

The Varnum Court made much ado about the legislature’s rationale in voiding section 595.2.
This does not concern us here. It does not concern us because there can be no equal privileges
challenge to Iowa’s recognition of a Nonstatutory Solemnization of Marriage under section
595.11 which itself is grounded on the law of nature and which by definition acknowledges only
the male and female eligibility of that marriage. To litigate an Iowa equal privileges claim
against section 595.11 in the same manner and fashion as against 595.2, is to maintain that the
Iowa equal privileges clause can be used to strike down the cornerstone of Iowa statehood and
Iowa law itself. It is also an effort to strike down a law–the common law of marriage–a law not
created by the legislature, nor justified by any legislative rationale, by striking down the law of
nature regarding marriage itself.

Whatever power a Court might possess, even a State Supreme Court, it does not possess the
power to invalidate the organic law upon which a state, its constitution, and its laws are based or
upon which they must be derived. No possible valid construction of the equal privileges clause
can, consistent with the law of nature foundation upon which it is grounded, lead a Court to find
or declare that said clause requires the foundation itself to be set aside.
Why discuss all this legal “mumbo-jumbo?” Why not just say that God opposes homosexual
marriage?
The legal foundations of this county are not legal mumbo-jumbo. Our ignorance of them and the
Christian legal and Clerical profession’s embarrassment over pleading or preaching those legal
foundations, have lead us to the sorry state in which we now find ourselves.

Though God himself has declared that only a man and women are eligible for the institution of
marriage, it is not this fact which concerns us as a matter of law. What concerns us, is the
undeniable historical and legal fact that the colonies and state governments of this country,
recognized, acknowledged and established the law of nature as a binding legal proposition, when
they first declared their independence and appealed to it--the laws of nature and of nature’s God--
as the legal foundation upon which the constitutions and governments of these united States shall
operate. It must follow, therefore, that no state that desires to remain in the Union and be
governed accordingly, can deny the foundation upon which it is created. It must follow that no
state, nor any branch of that state’s government, be it a Supreme, appellate or inferior Court of
that state, has jurisdiction to interpret or construe a constitutional clause in such a way as to
nullify, set aside or countermand that foundational law of nature.

Thus, any effort by homosexual persons to qualify their relationship as a Nonstatutory
Solemnization of Marriage under section 595.11 must fail as a matter of law. If Iowans need
direction on how to proceed, they should tell their elected officials that section 595.11 controls
and that as such Iowa does not recognize homosexual marriage. Since nothing in the Varnum
case discuss this law, the Court’s decision is irrelevant.

What else can the Governor do?
He may call upon the legislature to reaffirm by Resolution Iowa's historical commitment to
common law marriage between a man and women and revise the laws of Iowa to recognize the
common law in relevant cases, tying the objects stated in footnote 19 of the opinion to the
common law’s recognition of marriage. He can ask the legislature to carefully articulate the law
of nature basis upon which marriage is grounded and Iowa’s obligation as a State in the Union to
ensure that its laws conform to the law of nature as adopted by the Declaration of Independence.
He can affirm that the law of nature is an independent grounds not discussed by the Court, nor
one which could be lawfully discussed by the Iowa Supreme Court in the Varnum case.
Finally, the Governor can call upon the people of Iowa to make its views know to the legislature
and to defend the separation of powers doctrine against Judicial usurpation.

What about the Legislature?
As noted above, the legislature can do nothing. Or it can do the right thing and reaffirm by
Resolution Iowa's historical commitment to common law marriage between a man and women
and revise the laws of Iowa to recognize the common law in relevant cases, tying the legislative
benefits of marriage stated in footnote 19 of the Court’s opinion, to the common law’s
recognition of marriage. The legislature can also hold hearings for the purpose of carefully
articulate the law of nature basis upon which marriage is grounded and Iowa’s obligation as a
State in the Union to ensure that its laws conform to the law of nature as adopted by the
Declaration of Independence.

The legislature can do one thing in addition. It can hold hearings on the separation of powers. It
can receive testimony to the effect that Courts do not have the power to make laws of general
applicability or bind the people. They only have power to declare the law of the case with regard
to the parties before it. The fact that the decision is wrong does not change this effect with regard
to the parties. There are remedies for a wrong opinion. The judiciary, while the weakest, is still
an equal, independent and coordinate branch of the state government. In short, the Court's effort
on page 68 of its opinion to commandeer the legislative and executive branches into accepting
the Court’s rewrite of the statute is in and of itself a violation of the separation of powers for
which the Court may ultimately be held accountable by the legislature under Article III, sections
19 and 20 permitting impeachment for “malfeasance in office.” The Legislature can determine if
the Impeachment power ought to be used in this case.

What can the Polk County Board of Commissioners do?
The Polk County Board of Commissioners should file a motion to reconsider and clarify in the
21 day period. They should challenge the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court to require the
issuance of a marriage license as stated in its opinion under remedies. They should direct the
County Sheriff to not enforce the Court’s opinion upon the County Register or Recorder.

What can the Media do?
The media and Amicus of record, should stop declaring that the Varnum case legalizes gay
marriage in Iowa. Noting could be further from the truth or more contrary to the limited nature
of judicial power.

Why haven’t I heard others make any of these obvious points?
Ask them, and don’t give them any more money until they answer you satisfactorily.

***************************************************
***************************************************

The following are the only things I have found in the Iowa Codes that mention what the Governor can or cannot do:

--------------------

DUTIES OF IOWA GOVERNOR:

Duties of governor . SEC. 8. He shall transact all executive business with the officers of government, civil and military, and may require information in writing from the officers of the executive department upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.
Duty as to state accounts, §70A.8 of the Code

----------

70A.8 State accounts - inspection.
The books, accounts, vouchers, and funds belonging to, or kept in, any state office or institution, or in the charge or under the control of any state officer or person having charge of any state funds or property, shall, at all times, be open or subject to the inspection of the governor or any committee appointed by the governor, or by the general assembly or either house thereof; and the governor shall see that such inspection of the office of state treasurer is made at least four times in every twelve months.
[C57, §59, 69; R60, §80, 90; C73, §132; C97, §184; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §1225; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §79.8]
C93, §70A.8
Iowa Constitution, Art. IV, §8

--------------------

Governor
Election and term. SEC. 2. The governor and the lieutenant governor shall be elected by the qualified electors at the time and place of voting for members of the general assembly. Each of them shall hold office for four years from the time of installation in office and until a successor is elected and qualifies.
Repealed and rewritten 1988, Amendment [41]

----------

[41] Amendment 1. Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as amended by amendment number 1 of the Amendments of 1972, is repealed beginning with the general election in the year 1990 and the following adopted in lieu thereof:
Election and term. SEC. 2. The governor and the lieutenant governor shall be elected by the qualified electors at the time and place of voting for members of the general assembly. Each of them shall hold office for four years from the time of installation in office and until a successor is elected and qualifies.
Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as amended by amendment number 1 of the Amendments of 1972, is repealed beginning with the general election in the year 1990 and the following adopted in lieu thereof:
Governor and lieutenant governor elected jointly - returns of elections. SEC. 3. The electors shall designate their selections for governor and lieutenant governor as if these two offices were one and the same. The names of nominees for the governor and the lieutenant governor shall be grouped together in a set on the ballot according to which nominee for governor is seeking office with which nominee for lieutenant governor, as prescribed by law. An elector shall cast only one vote for both a nominee for governor and a nominee for lieutenant governor. The returns of every election for governor and lieutenant governor shall be sealed and transmitted to the seat of government of the state, and directed to the speaker of the house of representatives who shall open and publish them in the presence of both houses of the general assembly.
Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as amended by amendment number 1 of the Amendments of 1952, is repealed beginning with the general election in the year 1990 and the following adopted in lieu thereof:
Election by general assembly in case of tie - succession by lieutenant governor. SEC. 4. The nominees for governor and lieutenant governor jointly having the highest number of votes cast for them shall be declared duly elected. If two or more sets of nominees for governor and lieutenant governor have an equal and the highest number of votes for the offices jointly, the general assembly shall by joint vote proceed, as soon as is possible, to elect one set of nominees for governor and lieutenant governor. If, upon the completion by the general assembly of the canvass of votes for governor and lieutenant governor, it appears that the nominee for governor in the set of nominees for governor and lieutenant governor receiving the highest number of votes has since died or resigned, is unable to qualify, fails to qualify, or is for any other reason unable to assume the duties of the office of governor for the ensuing term, the powers and duties shall devolve to the nominee for lieutenant governor of the same set of nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, who shall assume the powers and duties of governor upon inauguration and until the disability is removed. If both nominees for governor and lieutenant governor are unable to assume the duties of the office of governor, the person next in succession shall act as governor.
Section 5 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is repealed beginning with the general election in the year 1990 and the following adopted in lieu thereof:
Contested elections. SEC. 5. Contested elections for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor shall be determined by the general assembly as prescribed by law.

--------------------

From the Iowa Constitution.

Execution of laws. SEC. 9. He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

--------------------

Convening general assembly. SEC. 11. He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the general assembly by proclamation, and shall state to both houses, when assembled, the purpose for which they shall have been convened.
See also codified Iowa Constitution, Art. III, §2

----------

Annual sessions of general assembly - special sessions. SEC. 2. The general assembly shall meet in session on the second Monday of January of each year. Upon written request to the presiding officer of each house of the general assembly by two-thirds of the members of each house, the general assembly shall convene in special session. The governor of the state may convene the general assembly by proclamation in the interim.
Repealed and rewritten 1974, Amendment [36]
Special sessions, see also codified Iowa Constitution, Art. IV, §11

----------

[36] Amendment 2. Section two (2) of Article three (III) of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as amended by amendment number one (1) of the Amendments of 1968 to the Constitution of the State of Iowa, is repealed and the following adopted in lieu thereof:
Annual sessions of General Assembly - special sessions. The General Assembly shall meet in session on the second Monday of January of each year. Upon written request to the presiding officer of each House of the General Assembly by two-thirds of the members of each House, the General Assembly shall convene in special session. The Governor of the state may convene the General Assembly by proclamation in the interim.

--------------------

Message. SEC. 12. He shall communicate, by message, to the general assembly, at every regular session, the condition of the state, and recommend such matters as he shall deem expedient.

--------------------

Iowa Code - Title 1 - Subtitle 4:

7.3 Counsel.
Whenever the governor is satisfied that an action or proceeding has been commenced which may affect the rights or interests of the state, the governor may employ counsel to protect such rights or interests; and when any civil action or proceeding has been or is about to be commenced by the proper officer in behalf of the state, the governor may employ additional counsel to assist in the cause.
[C51, §40; R60, §44; C73, §59; C97, §63; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §80; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §7.3]
Employment by executive council, §13.7

--------------------

7.17 Office of administrative rules coordinator - style and form of rules.
1. The governor shall establish the office of the administrative rules coordinator, and appoint its staff, which shall be a part of the governor's office. The administrative rules coordinator shall receive all notices and rules adopted pursuant to chapter 17A and provide the governor with an opportunity to review and object to any rule as provided in chapter 17A.
2. In consultation with the administrative rules coordinator, the administrative code editor shall prescribe a uniform style and form by which an agency shall prepare and file a rule pursuant to chapter 17A, which shall correlate each rule to a uniform numbering system devised by the administrative code editor and which shall provide for electronic filing and publication of the rules from the database used to produce the official publications of the administrative rules of this state. The administrative code editor shall review all submitted rules for style and form and notify the administrative rules coordinator if a rule is not in proper style or form as provided in section 2B.5, and may return or revise a rule which is not in proper style and form. The style and form prescribed shall require that the agency include a reference to the statute which the rules are intended to implement.
[C79, 81, §7.17]
90 Acts, ch 1266, §28; 91 Acts, ch 258, §7; 2006 Acts, ch 1011, §1

--------------------

Iowa Code - Title 1 - Subtitle 6

CHAPTER 17A
IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
17A.1 Citation and statement of purpose.
17A.2 Definitions.
17A.3 Public information - adoption of rules - availability of rules and orders.
17A.4 Procedure for adoption of rules.
17A.4A Regulatory analysis.
17A.5 Filing and taking effect of rules.
17A.6 Publications.
17A.7 Petition for adoption of rules and request for review of rules.
17A.8 Administrative rules review committee.
17A.9 Declaratory orders.
17A.9A Waivers and variances.
17A.10 Informal settlements - waiver.
17A.10A Contested cases - no factual dispute.
17A.11 Presiding officer, disqualification, substitution.
17A.12 Contested cases - notice - hearing - records.
17A.13 Subpoenas - discovery.
17A.14 Rules of evidence - official notice.
17A.15 Final decisions - proposed decisions - conclusiveness - review by the agency.
17A.16 Decisions and orders - rehearing.
17A.17 Ex parte communications and separation of functions.
17A.18 Licenses.
17A.18A Emergency adjudicative proceedings.
17A.19 Judicial review.
17A.20 Appeals.
17A.21 Inconsistency with federal law.
17A.22 Agency authority to implement chapter.
17A.23 Construction.
17A.24 to 17A.30 Reserved.
17A.31 and 17A.32 Repealed by 98 Acts, ch 1202, §45, 46.
17A.33 Review by administrative rules review committee.
17A.34 Competition with private enterprise - notice for proposed rules.

--------------------

17A.9 Declaratory orders.
1. a. Any person may petition an agency for a declaratory order as to the applicability to specified circumstances of a statute, rule, or order within the primary jurisdiction of the agency.
b. (1) An agency shall issue a declaratory order in response to a petition for that order unless the agency determines that issuance of the order under the circumstances would be contrary to a rule adopted in accordance with subsection 2.
(2) However, an agency shall not issue a declaratory order that would substantially prejudice the rights of a person who would be a necessary party and who does not consent in writing to the determination of the matter by a declaratory order proceeding.
2. Each agency shall adopt rules that provide for the form, contents, and filing of petitions for declaratory orders, the procedural rights of persons in relation to the petitions, and the disposition of the petitions. The rules must describe the classes of circumstances in which the agency will not issue a declaratory order and must be consistent with the public interest and with the general policy of this chapter to facilitate and encourage agency issuance of reliable advice.
3. Within fifteen days after receipt of a petition for a declaratory order, an agency shall give notice of the petition to all persons to whom notice is required by any provision of law and may give notice to any other persons.
4. Persons who qualify under any applicable provision of law as an intervenor and who file timely petitions for intervention according to agency rules may intervene in proceedings for declaratory orders. The provisions of sections 17A.10 through 17A.18 apply to agency proceedings for declaratory orders only to the extent an agency so provides by rule or order.
5. Within thirty days after receipt of a petition for a declaratory order, an agency, in writing, shall do one of the following:
a. Issue an order declaring the applicability of the statute, rule, or order in question to the specified circumstances.
b. Set the matter for specified proceedings.
c. Agree to issue a declaratory order by a specified time.
d. Decline to issue a declaratory order, stating the reasons for its action.
6. A copy of all orders issued in response to a petition for a declaratory order must be mailed promptly to the petitioner and any other parties.
7. A declaratory order has the same status and binding effect as any final order issued in a contested case proceeding. A declaratory order must contain the names of all parties to the proceeding on which it is based, the particular facts on which it is based, and the reasons for its conclusion.
8. If an agency has not issued a declaratory order within sixty days after receipt of a petition therefor, or such later time as agreed by the parties, the petition is deemed to have been denied. Once a petition for a declaratory order is deemed denied or if the agency declines to issue a declaratory order pursuant to subsection 5, paragraph "d", a party to that proceeding may either seek judicial review or await further agency action with respect to its petition for a declaratory order.
[C75, 77, 79, 81, §17A.9]
98 Acts, ch 1202, §13, 46; 2008 Acts, ch 1032, §201
Subsection 1 internally renumbered pursuant to Code editor directive