Federal immunization mandate seizes state and judicial authority – The Oakland Post

As from the. reported Associated pressThe Biden administration recently announced a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for US companies with 100 or more employees. This mandate will be enforced for 84 million employees from January 4, 2022 and includes different levels of public and private implementation from state to state, with enforcement obligations being delegated to the occupational health and safety authority (OSHA).

This mandate, enforced by OSHA, states that companies “Require their employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or to get tested weekly for the virus and wear masks at work.” Violations of this mandate will result in a fine of $ 13,653 per instance for guilty companies, and employees who fail to adhere to the vaccination schedule developed by their employer can face termination.

The constitutionality of this Mandate Plan – drawn up by the Executive Office and delegated to an Executive Agency – is part of the ever growing Administrative state – was direct questioned at the federal appeals court of the fifth district. In the case of questions about the constitutionality of this order, the court of the fifth district temporarily ordered a. at Stop on the necessary preparations for the mandate for the January 4th deadline. In five different appellate courts, 26 states have challenged the dictates of the Biden government.

Legal precedents for meeting this mandate are shaky at best. The most prominent historical precedent – the 1905 Supreme Court decision of Jacobson versus Massachusetts – upheld the right of a US state to enforce compulsory vaccination. This decision relates specifically to a the state government, that is, the Massachusetts state government, the ability to use their police state powers to replace individual liberty. In this case, it was Henning Jacobson who refused to take the smallpox vaccine and was forced to take the vaccine by the state government – not the federal government or the executive branch.

I’m not worried about the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, and the vaccines do their job reduce the likelihood Hospitalization and death from COVID-19. What worries me is the executive power of the president and the administrative state that makes medical decisions for me. Another person’s vaccination status is not important to me because I am vaccinated. I am responsible for my own medical well-being and that of no one else. Individual cost-risk considerations – and a sense of the individual ability to act – are of the utmost importance in making such personal decisions.

As for me, President Biden’s rhetoric about the role of personal freedoms in relation to COVID-19 – and the government’s role in “protecting” vaccinated people from unvaccinated people – tells me what I need to know about the intent of this vaccine Mandate.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice” President Biden said. “It’s about protecting yourself and those around you – the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love … The bottom line: we will protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated employees.”

I don’t want to empower the executive branch to the point where its ability to determine what is a legitimate claim to personal freedom is invincible, and I definitely don’t want it to trample on state governments. The federal government should motivate people to vaccinate and not tell them that only the government can protect them from unvaccinated people after vaccination. Another cause for concern – particularly in the American system of checks and balances – is how the Biden administration continues gross disregard the legal residence of the judiciary during the mandate program.

Source link

Comments are closed.