7 ms·
The Arguments That Persuaded 5th Circuit to Block OSHA Vaccine Mandate
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoFrom the article: But the federal government has no general authority to protect public health, control communicable diseases, or require vaccination, all of which are primarily state responsibilities. What I do not see is where these specific responsibilities are laid out and clearly delegated to the states. Nor is it said why states are the preferred entity to determine and guide the response to a clear and present national threat. . For reference sake: Case law about states' rights to vaccinate the public: In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court upheld a state’s mandatory compulsory smallpox vaccination law over the challenge of a pastor who alleged that it violated his religious liberty rights. The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan I, ruled that the state of Massachusetts acted constitutionally within its police powers to pass a law to protect the health and safety of the public. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1824/jacobson-v-massachusetts https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1824/jacobson-v-mas...
- josephcsible 5y ago> What I do not see is where these specific responsibilities are laid out and clearly delegated to the states. The Tenth Amendment makes it pretty clear that everything is that way by default.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago10A doesn't address health issues, nevertheless these specific responsibilities. What the 10A does is lay out the boundaries of state independence. What 10A does not do is nullify the Supremacy Clause; states can not overrule US Gov law. ref: https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/the-supremac...
- peteradio 5y agoPass a law then.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoExecutive Orders are exercises of existing laws.
- rsj_hn 5y agoIf they are constitutional, yes.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago> If they are constitutional, yes. And the laws upon which EOs are based have to exist. Constitutionally dubious EOs (eg: EO12333) could be nullified by the SCotUS, if the political will exists to bring it before the court and if the court isn't overly deferential to those interests enhanced by the law.
- rsj_hn 5y ago> And the laws upon which EOs are based have to exist. Yes! They have to exist and also be constitutional themselves.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoIn this case the laws in play are Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 and section 301 of title 3, U.S.C.
- rsj_hn 5y agoI don't think that's the correct law -- Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 is about managing of Federal contractors and property. That is a separate vaccine mandate, which isn't really a mandate but a requirement that in order to contract with the federal government, you need to comply. The OSHA ruling under discussion (the one that was blocked) is for all employers with 100 or more employees.
- peteradio 5y agoMakes sense to me, I don't want to be beholden to whatever experimentation California, New York, or Florida (as examples) chooses to impose on themselves.
- rsj_hn 5y ago> What I do not see is where these specific responsibilities are laid out and clearly delegated to the states Let me help you with this: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full...
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoplease see this thread for that discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150164#29150707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150164#29150707