On 9/9/2021 at 2:07 PM, VanHammersly said:

There is precedent for it.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/08/vaccine-mandate-strong-supreme-court-precedent-510280

The year was 1904, and when his politically charged legal challenge to the $5 fine for failing to get vaccinated made its way to the Supreme Court, the justices had a surprise for Rev. Jacobson. One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. Jacobson, they ruled, must abide by the order of the Cambridge board of health or pay the penalty.

But that was a state mandate, not the federal government.  There is a difference.  Just like states can mandate a drinking age, or mandate that you must wear a seatbelt when driving.  The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do such things.  As Vikas pointed out, the federal government can get around this by making it a requirement of receiving funds.  That's how the federal government got the states to make a drinking age of 21.  I believe Biden's order should (and hopefully will) be found unconstitutional.  If a private business wants to mandate vaccines, that's absolutely their right.  I don't see how the federal government has the power to mandate that private businesses do so.

 

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

But that was a state mandate, not the federal government.  There is a difference.  Just like states can mandate a drinking age, or mandate that you must wear a seatbelt when driving.  The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do such things.  As Vikas pointed out, the federal government can get around this by making it a requirement of receiving funds.  That's how the federal government got the states to make a drinking age of 21.  I believe Biden's order should (and hopefully will) be found unconstitutional.  If a private business wants to mandate vaccines, that's absolutely their right.  I don't see how the federal government has the power to mandate that private businesses do so.

 

The federal government has broad powers to enact legislation under the Commerce Clause.  However, the difference here is that you're dealing with executive, not legislative, action.  I suspect though that the administration will argue that Congress delegated its powers to the executive branch when it enacted legislation authorizing the executive branch to promulgate regulations.

I am personally of the position that the administration committed an overreach of power in this instance.  I am not as optimistic as others that challenges in the court will be successful though.  

5 hours ago, Procus said:

The federal government has broad powers to enact legislation under the Commerce Clause.  However, the difference here is that you're dealing with executive, not legislative, action.  I suspect though that the administration will argue that Congress delegated its powers to the executive branch when it enacted legislation authorizing the executive branch to promulgate regulations.

I am personally of the position that the administration committed an overreach of power in this instance.  I am not as optimistic as others that challenges in the court will be successful though.  

Even if Congress had legislated this, I still don’t see how it would be constitutional.  

9 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

But that was a state mandate, not the federal government.  There is a difference.  Just like states can mandate a drinking age, or mandate that you must wear a seatbelt when driving.  The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do such things.  As Vikas pointed out, the federal government can get around this by making it a requirement of receiving funds.  That's how the federal government got the states to make a drinking age of 21.  I believe Biden's order should (and hopefully will) be found unconstitutional.  If a private business wants to mandate vaccines, that's absolutely their right.  I don't see how the federal government has the power to mandate that private businesses do so.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing that this is how it should have been handled, but merely on the legal aspects and how it might be adjudicated.

Note that this isn't technically a vaccine mandate. The requirement is to provide proof of vaccination OR weekly testing. The question is whether an unvaccinated & untested worker meets the legal standard for being a health risk to anyone else in the workplace. That is the burden of proof to be placed on OSHA should this go to the SCOTUS. Thus, the more applicable cases to establish precedent would be these:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/452/490

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/442

 

 

I feel there is occupational hazard to workers who have to congregate in large groups indoors or in enclosed spaces. That's the nature of OSHA requirement. I understand it is approved as an emergency measure (Emergency Temporary Standard ETS), therefore it is only temporary until it is renewed or made permanent. By the time it goes through all the legal processes, it may no longer be required or even in-force anymore.

However, it makes massive assumptions about everyone's workplace. It assumes workers are congregating together. Not everyone's job is to be indoors with others. Also lots of workers continue to work remotely. Also it leaves little wiggle room whose health status makes it difficult to be vaccinated: ie. if they are allergic, or if they have recently recovered from illness, etc.

I don't feel it's so much an overreach (the administration followed the laws in place); as much as this may not be an effective way to get people vaccinated. I feel business owners have a legitimate complaint about whether the requirement should be in their workplace, so much they can poke holes through the OSHA requirements. I think it'll be a tough job for OSHA to mandate. LINK

Quote

OSHA does not have nearly enough staff to inspect the vast majority of workplaces for compliance with the forthcoming vaccination mandate.

 

7 hours ago, Procus said:

The federal government has broad powers to enact legislation under the Commerce Clause.  However, the difference here is that you're dealing with executive, not legislative, action.  I suspect though that the administration will argue that Congress delegated its powers to the executive branch when it enacted legislation authorizing the executive branch to promulgate regulations.

I am personally of the position that the administration committed an overreach of power in this instance.  I am not as optimistic as others that challenges in the court will be successful though.  

Correct. This is the reasoning for the minimum 100 employees requirement so that it likely falls under interstate commerce.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing that this is how it should have been handled, but merely on the legal aspects and how it might be adjudicated.

Note that this isn't technically a vaccine mandate. The requirement is to provide proof of vaccination OR weekly testing. The question is whether an unvaccinated & untested worker meets the legal standard for being a health risk to anyone else in the workplace. That is the burden of proof to be placed on OSHA should this go to the SCOTUS. Thus, the more applicable cases to establish precedent would be these:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/452/490

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/430/442

 

 

I don't know that OSHA has the manpower to enforce it. And I'm somewhat concerned at the risk of having lots of pseudo mandates that aren't enforceable, making our government even more feckless.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't know that OSHA has the manpower to enforce it. And I'm somewhat concerned at the risk of having lots of pseudo mandates that aren't enforceable, making our government even more feckless.

Enforcement is probably the biggest problem with this policy, and yeah I don't know of an easy way for them to go about it other than some sort of audit based approach. 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Enforcement is probably the biggest problem with this policy, and yeah I don't know of an easy way for them to go about it other than some sort of audit based approach. 

I'd bet they will get a lot of anonymous calls from people reporting their workplaces for noncompliance.

8 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

I'd bet they will get a lot of anonymous calls from people reporting their workplaces for noncompliance.

As an employee, I'm not sure how you'd know whether HR is enforcing the policy though. Unlike with masks that are clearly visible, someone's vaccination status or weekly testing is not. 

11 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

As an employee, I'm not sure how you'd know whether HR is enforcing the policy though. Unlike with masks that are clearly visible, someone's vaccination status or weekly testing is not. 

Well, if they never ask you for proof of vaccination, you kinda know.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, if they never ask you for proof of vaccination, you kinda know.

True, but they could ask and then just not care about anyone that doesn't provide it. 

26 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

As an employee, I'm not sure how you'd know whether HR is enforcing the policy though. Unlike with masks that are clearly visible, someone's vaccination status or weekly testing is not. 

True but anti vaxxers tend to be both loud and stupid.

 

3 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

True but anti vaxxers tend to be both loud and stupid.

 

Yeah if they start bragging about how they refused to be vaccinated and haven't been asked to submit weekly test results, then that's a pretty good sign HR isn't doing their job.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah if they start bragging about how they refused to be vaccinated and haven't been asked to submit weekly test results, then that's a pretty good sign HR isn't doing their job.

I mean, they posted about storming the Capitol on Facebook. These people aren't exactly known for discretion.

Just now, vikas83 said:

I mean, they posted about storming the Capitol on Facebook. These people aren't exactly known for discretion.

touche

9 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Even if Congress had legislated this, I still don’t see how it would be constitutional.  

I know it sounds odd and irrelevant here, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to allow Congress to enact almost anything.  For example, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 upheld civil rights legislation enacted by Congress as being constitutionally authorized under the Commerce Clause.  In other words, Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce gave it the authority to enact civil rights legislation.

Let's say the Covid vaccine mandates that Biden proposed were instead enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president.  Under what grounds do you think it would be unconstitutional?  Remember, unconstitutional and unfair are two different things.

Keep calm. Don't walk out until you hear "you're fired".

6 hours ago, Boogyman said:

True but anti vaxxers tend to be both loud and stupid.

 

Yeah. Especially when those dirt bags are rioting, burning cities, and looting businesses before crying about a lack of opportunity and "food deserts".

Wait a minute. Wrong dirtbags.

6 hours ago, Boogyman said:

True but anti vaxxers tend to be both loud and stupid.

 

 

1 minute ago, lynched1 said:

Yeah. Especially when those dirt bags are rioting, burning cities, and looting businesses before crying about a lack of opportunity and "food deserts".

Wait a minute. Wrong dirtbags.

 

"I would estimate 30% of the ICU patients in NYC are from vaccine complications but nobody wants to talk about that. They get coded as something else or they will ignore the fact an otherwise healthy person had a heart attack or stroke within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine,” Dr. James said. "I have seen vaccine complications in the general public, and even among healthcare providers. This is a serious problem and it’s only getting worse, and these mandates will make it much worse, but we won’t have the data to deal with it because of politics.”

29 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

"I would estimate 30% of the ICU patients in NYC are from vaccine complications but nobody wants to talk about that. They get coded as something else or they will ignore the fact an otherwise healthy person had a heart attack or stroke within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine,” Dr. James said. "I have seen vaccine complications in the general public, and even among healthcare providers. This is a serious problem and it’s only getting worse, and these mandates will make it much worse, but we won’t have the data to deal with it because of politics.”

Got a link to that quote?

25 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Got a link to that quote?

I assume you can find it on his Facebook page, just look for his craziest friend.

This vaccine isnt really a vaccine.  It's gene therapy.  A real vaccine involves dead viruses.

30% of ICU cases from vaccine complications 

Just the dumbest Fing people.