3 ms·
Pass a law then.
by peteradio 5y ago
Pass 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.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoI haven't read the challenge but it seems reasonable that the EO is being challenged on laws other than the laws cited in the EO.
- peteradio 5y agoAny precedent for an EO of this sort?
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoWe're up to EO14050. If any previous EOs are similar, I'd imagine they'd have been cited by now.