Posted on 01/27/2022 10:22:48 AM PST by dangus
There seems to be a disturbing, growing sense that Gov Youngkin overreached when he forbade school districts from requiring mask mandates. The problem, advocates are admitting, is that Virginia's legislature passed a law requiring school boards to comply with CDC guidelines. But the law says only that they must do so "to the extent practicable."
Here's the thing: The new law did not mandate masks per se. It could have. It could also define what CDC guidelines could be deemed impracticable and what could be deemed mandatory. It did not. And that phrase, "to the extent practicable" is there for a reason. And that reason is despite the untold billions of dollars poured out on schools across the nation to comply with CDC guidelines, there may still be reasons why schools cannot comply. Maybe some moderates recognized that fact and demanded the inclusion of the phrase. Most supporters probably didn't foresee Youngkin's action. But nonetheless, violating the state constitution is not "practicable." Therefore, the law doesn't apply to any guideline which violates the state constitution, nor to any action beyond the constitutional authority of school boards.
Many of those skeptical of Youngkin's exective order are falsely presuming that education is fully under the purview of school boards, and not the governor, based on Article 8, Section 7 of the Virginia Constitution, "The supervision of schools in each school division shall be vested in a school board."
As Youngkin correctly noted in his executive order, "The Commonwealth recognizes in § 1-240.1 of the Code of Virginia, that “a parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child.”"
But more than that, the board is not limitless in its authority to impose requirements and discipline. It can recommend that children wear masks, but, if a child does not, what authority can the board claim to force the child. It cannot deny him a basic education, and I pray to God that millions of American parents sue the everloving stuffing out of teachers' unions who denied their students meaningful education by these closing schools.
Rather, the board must be able to prove that using disciplinary tactics to deprive "disobedient" students is a tactic proportionate to the threats and disruption their misbehavior causes. This is no small task. The legislature gave the CDC authority to discern which guidelines would be helpful to control coronavirus... but the CDC has not and cannot reasonably weigh the danger of students transmitting coronavirus as greater than the harm of denying a student an education.
And herein, the Governor makes the case that the evidence that students' safety will be improved by mask-wearing simply is lacking.
Free From Mask Mandate and Vaccine Passport, England Begins Living With COVID-19
The Epoch Times ^ | January 27, 2022 | Lily Zhou
Posted on 1/27/2022, 10:16:35 AM by yoe
Following a dramatic but brief panic over the Omicron variant of the CCP virus that triggered compulsory mask-wearing and COVID passport, England has started living with COVID-19, this time without a contingency menu of restrictions.
From Jan. 27, masks are no longer legally required anywhere in England, and nightclubs and large events are no longer mandated to check NHS COVID Passes.
[snip](Announcing the lifting of restrictions on Jan. 19,) Johnson said the government needs to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance and urge people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others as COVID-19 becomes endemic.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
50,000 Strong Trucker Convoy Travels to Ottawa, Canada, Demanding End to Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates
dailyexpose.uk ^ | 1/27/2022 | CAPTAINDARETOFLY
Posted on 1/27/2022, 10:31:06 AM by ransomnote
ransomnote: The Expose is over the target and taking flak, banned and censored - even Paypal turned against them in an effort to deprive them of funding. Please pray that the Expose receive the funds it needs to keep serving the public.
A convoy of truckers is travelling across Canada towards Ottawa in protest of the government’s oppressive Covid-19 vaccine mandates for the trucking industry.
Called the “Freedom Convoy 2022,” the effort involves more than 50,000 truckers who refuse to comply with the vaccine mandate and are being forced out of their jobs as a result.
The “slow roll,” which raised $3.5 million (£2.5 million) worth of support in only 11 days, was joined by truckers all across the country who drive both intrastate and cross-border throughout North America.
The GoFundMe page for the convoy currently shows support from more than 44,000 donors who are helping the truckers to be able to stay in Ottawa for as long as necessary to see the mandates removed.
“We are taking our fight to the doorsteps of our Federal Government and demanding that they cease all mandates against its people,” the GoFundMe page reads.
“Small businesses are being destroyed, homes are being destroyed, and people are being mistreated and denied fundamental necessities to survive.”
The money raised will be used to pay for “fuel, food and lodgings to help ease the pressures of this arduous task,” the page further explains.
Over the weekend, truckers and their supporters from western Canada began their journey east, stopping in cities and towns throughout British Columbia. Thousands of additional Alberta truckers joined them once they reached that area.
It’s estimated that there are more than 50,000 truck drivers and supporters joining up with the convoy the further east it moves.
According to reports, the caravan from Edmonton alone was said to be more than 40 kilometres long before it arrived in Calgary to finish the trek to Ottawa.
“From British Columbia, estimates put their caravan, who have now joined up in Alberta on their way east, at well over 70 kilometres in length,” reported one media outlet.
“Truckers in Ontario and other parts of eastern Canada will begin, or already have done so, separate convoys to Ottawa in the coming days.”
The current mandate stated that truckers across Canada who are crossing the border must be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 by the 15th of January.
Given the obscene politicization of the executive branch of U.S. government, most people probably do not reason that when a President issues an executive order, he is not legislating. Instead, he is offering a binding opinion as to what he feels is required by the law. Gov. Youngkin is insisting that the law requires school boards to provide education to students whose parents find masks harmful.
Newer legislation CAN rescind older legislation. However, courts must interpret newer legislation as consistent with legislation when that newer legislation does not explicitly repeal or replace older legislation. Therefore, where the media has ignored the phrase, “to the extent practicable,” one may casually suppose that adhering to CDC guidelines would include implementing a recommendation to require masks. But the inclusion of that phrase pretty much means that if requiring masks is not practicable under existing law, the school boards are NOT obliged to treat CDC guidelines as law.
The executive order: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/74-—eo/74-—eo/EO-2-—School-Mask-Mandate-Executive-Order-Exception.pdf
An interesting news story which has already been well-covered by FR. I don’t see what it has to do with my news story, though.
The law also says more than what you claim:
"Each school board shall offer in-person instruction to each student enrolled in the local school division in a public elementary and secondary school for at least the minimum number of required instructional hours and to each student enrolled in the local school division in a public school-based early childhood care and education program for the entirety of the instructional time provided pursuant to such program. For the purposes of this act, each school board shall (i) adopt, implement, and, when appropriate, update specific parameters for the provision of in-person instruction and (ii) provide such in-person instruction in a manner in which it adheres, to the maximum extent practicable, to any currently applicable mitigation strategies for early childhood care and education programs and elementary and secondary schools to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that have been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Keep in mind that the first version of this bill was offered by a Republican, and all that it said was that schools had to offer in person instruction. The Democrats (who had a trifecta in Virginia) heavily modified it and added the CDC mitigation language.
You might not like it. I certainly don't. However, it was a law that was debated, amended, passed and then signed by the then Governor.
You can try to creatively interpret what it says, but it certainly says more than what you think that it does.
The real issue is how this law interacts with other sections of the VA Code and the Constitution. Ultimately, The VA Supreme Court is going to have to interpret the two competing sections and figure out what the rule is.
That's how the system works. Governor Youngkin can no more erase the law (which expires August 1) out of existence than he can magically enact new laws. That's ultimately up to the General Assembly.
He's not a dictator.
So the school district will use taxpayer dollars
to fight the governor using tax payer dollars
to fight the teacher’s unions,
that are using confiscated union dues and money laundered through campaign finance donations into taxpayer funded pay increases,
to force 8 year olds to wear ChiCom slave-made, slavemasks
that don’t block shiite, to fight off the ChiCom WuHu, that was funded by tax dollars through Der Weisse Engel Fauci.
And we all benefit from this how, exactly . . .?
Please see post 4. I went into greater detail about “to the maximum extent practicable.”
That phrase has been interpreted more than 1200 times by the VA Courts. It doesn’t mean what you think it does, especially when it is linked to something explicit like “mitigation of COVID 19 provided by the CDC.”
I don’t like it at all, but ultimately it’s going to fall on the courts to interpret the competing code sections in the context of the VA Constitution.
Common theme of mandates.
Do you want to send me ONE that fits?
To be clear: one time when the Virginia Courts interpreted “to the maximum extent practicable” to mean to override competing considerations explicitly stated in law.
The problem is that the CDC has no authority to issue the directive in the first place anymore the OSHA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.