Colorado
Related: About this forumKristi Burton Brown Keeps Using That Word
a sweeping new mandate from the Biden administration requiring millions of American workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Colorado Republican Party chairwoman Kristi Burton Brown fired back a volley of pointed if not exactly coherent words in oppositionincluding the one key word that gets thrown around so often in politics, by persons who know what the word means and those who do notto CBS4s Rick Sallinger.
The word in question is unconstitutional.
I mean its absolutely unconstitutional. Joe Biden does not have the power to tell private business owners what to do with their employees, she said.
As we discussed last Thursday ahead of the vaccine mandates formal announcement, it wasnt that long ago when even most Republicans were uncontroversially in support of requiring vaccines for a range of childhood diseases. As recently as 2015 both Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman saw no political risk in endorsing mandatory vaccination for school-age children. As for the constitutionality of vaccine mandates?
In a timely in-depth story last week, Politico explains how The U.S. Supreme Court decided that question 115 years ago in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts:
There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good, read the majority opinion. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.
Read more: https://www.coloradopols.com/diary/163553/kristi-burton-brown-keeps-using-that-word
Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
multigraincracker
(34,071 posts)the other day. Started to talk about his distrust of cops. Me too I said, then he added that he was a Constitutionalist. I said me too and that they might as well throw out the Seventh Amendment because it means nothing. He ask what does it say?
Thomas Hurt
(13,925 posts)That is what sovereigns called themselves 20 or 30 years ago.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Number one, it involves a State's action, not a Federal action, and number 2, it involves the direct relationship between person and state. There's no 'employer' middleman.
So it does not necessarily apply to Biden's employer mandate.
My guess is that that this SCOTUS in particular is likely to throw it out, if a case on the subject reaches their bench.
The key issue I'd guess is the part where the POTUS is essentially deputizing private employers to act as vaccination enforcers, potentially against their will. Acting in this capacity costs them money by forcing an administrative burden on them.
I suspect SCOTUS would find that Congress could do this, but not POTUS.
underpants
(186,631 posts)Title:
Basis of authority
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1975/1975.2
The power of Congress to regulate employment conditions under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, is derived mainly from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. (Sec. 2(b), Public Law 91-596; U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3; "United States v. Darby," 312 U.S. 100.) The reach of the Commerce Clause extends beyond Federal regulation of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce so as to empower Congress to regulate conditions or activities which affect commerce even though the activity or condition may itself not be commerce and may be purely intrastate in character. ("Gibbons v. Ogden," 9 Wheat. 1, 195; "United States v. Darby," supra; "Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 117; and "Perez v. United States," 91 S. Ct. 1357 (1971).)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215840218
OSHA act of 1970 Section 5 Duties. "recognized hazards"
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/section5-duties
(a) Each employer --
(1)
29 USC 654
shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
(2)
shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
(b)
Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.