What’s missing from all of these so-called “stay at home" and other "emergency" orders of our state Governors?

 What’s missing from all of these so-called “stay at home" and other "emergency" orders of our state Governors?  The most obvious answer might be judicial oversight.  But something else is missing as well.  

Legislative approval.  These orders amount to some of the most powerful legislation every enacted — and legislatures have not even been asked to bless these naked grabs for absolute power which prohibit meetings seeking to overturn the orders.  The strategy is so brilliant is must surely have come from Communist China:  Ban all protests so as to prevent anyone from challenging these unconstitutional orders.  

But these orders do not simply violate the Bill of Rights.  They also violate the concept of separation of powers.  These orders are stretching to months and months and months with no legislative approval.  But aren’t these are temporary emergency orders, you ask? 

Don't be foolish.  @GavinNewsome has announced that some orders will stay in effect until 2021.  But, of course, there is no time to gain legislative approval. and utilize the legislative process to gain a consensus as to what is to permitted or prohibited.

The fact most of these United States have had the executive branch seize control from the various sate legislatures is therefore apparent.  However, if you are still not convinced, The Federalist Papers is pertinent, pointing out how important is the check upon power provided by a first and even second legislative chamber:

Federalist 62 

IV The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered. In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from the want of such an institution.

First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration. . . .