Posted on 09/12/2021 8:54:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Courts will likely agree that the federal government has the authority to enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates but will argue that the rules and penalties cannot be enforced, said Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz.
President Joe Biden last week said that he will direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to mandate that employees at companies with 100 or more workers will have to either submit to weekly testing or get the COVID-19 vaccine. White House officials have said that fines will be handed down to those who don’t comply with the rule, which will impact about 80 million private-sector employees.
“No. 1, is this something the federal government can do as compared to the states?” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “The states have police power. The federal government doesn’t have police power. The federal government’s powers have to derive from the text of the Constitution.”
It’s likely that courts will say that the government can enforce vaccine mandates but will argue that it is only Congress that can order punishments and fines, he said.
“I think the courts will say the federal government does have the power because this is a national issue across the state lines. It’s not limited to states. It’s contagious,” Dershowitz said. “I think they will say that in the event that science supports it, there can be mandated vaccinations with exceptions.”
But such mandates are “generally relegated to the legislature in our system of government, so I think the courts will focus on that issue first and say that the president may not have the authority to do this without congressional authorization,” Dershowitz said.
“You can’t say it’s an emergency,” he continued. “This problem has existed since the first day of the Biden administration, and it will continue to exist on the last day of the Biden administration because we’re not going to see an end of COVID.”
Dershowitz added: “We’re going to see COVID become like the flu. Seasonal different variations, different vaccinations, so it shouldn’t be done under the rubric of emergency. It should be done under the rubric of ordinary congressional power.”
When the mandates are handed down to companies under Biden’s order, Dershowitz said that it will be a “big payday for lawyers” who will likely file numerous lawsuits on behalf of businesses and other entities.
“There will be individuals who will be fired, and they’ll sue immediately,” he also remarked. “There will be companies—and I know there are some already who said we refuse to obey this mandate—and we’ve had companies and states indicate they’re going to file suit.”
But such mandates are “generally relegated to the legislature in our system of government, so I think the courts will focus on that issue first and say that the president may not have the authority to do this without congressional authorization,” Dershowitz said.
Can businesses demand every employee’s abortion history to enforce a “no abortion” policy?
O BodyMORTGAGE CARE revisited. This after Trump ended the Mandate.
Here comes the Roberts.
Penal-ty.
❎
Since most people in the work force are under age 60, and since the COVID fatality rate for that age group is just a fraction of one percent, I do not see how Biden or OSHA can possibly claim in court that this is a medical emergency.
In addition, workers above age 60 already belong to the most vaccinated age group in the USA - more than 80% in Washington state.
Overhead…the costs associated with this plan would be too high.
Federal law has enough loopholes and enough corrupt men-in-black that this will stand. No one should rely on the Federal system anymore.
States and counties must nullify this. See what the Feds do next, but be ready to lose Federal money.
I don’t agree. One only needs to look at smoking laws. You can’t even smoke in your own home in some places.
This is how the "new jobs numbers" will explode into values never before seen as each new sub-company of 99 will be counted as new employment.
Who has the legal standing to challenge these OSHA mandates?
As I see it, the EMPLOYERS may be the only ones who have the legal standing to challenge the OSHA mandates. That should be fine, except that I suspect most employers have no interest in challenging them.
Think about it ...
Over the last eight months, employers have been dealing with a completely untenable situation where they can't figure out what kind of COVID-related work place requirements they should impose. If they require vaccines, then they may be potentially liable for vaccinated employees who suffer from vaccine side effects. If they don't require vaccines, then they may be liable for employees who contract COVID on the job.
Biden has done these employers a huge favor by eliminating their legal exposure when they impose vaccine mandates.
I don’t get what you’re saying.
What mandate did Trump end?
What Roberts pentalty?
The law will look to the functional reality behind the employee leasing company and aggregate all the employees for purposes of meeting the minimum. Happens all the time so that employers cannot escape laws that have such a threshold.
They’re counting on SCOTUS to rule this unconstitutional - which will be the “final straw” for the left to move against this “activist, partisan court”, and pack the court with compliant leftist judges.
The law will look to the functional reality behind the employee leasing company and aggregate all the employees for purposes of meeting the minimum. Happens all the time so that employers cannot escape laws that have such a threshold.
Supreme Court can refuse to hear the case on an expedited basis, which means literally years before they'd beed to decide anything.
“Who has the legal standing to challenge these OSHA mandates?”
IMO, everyone.
OSHA has no constitutional authority to write laws, mandates, dictates or rules. Only congress has legislative authority. And no, Congress may not transfer its law-making duty to unelected bureaucrats. Period.
In order to have standing to file a lawsuit in any court, a person must demonstrate that he or she has been directly harmed by the defendant in the case. If there is a car accident and someone is injured, for example, then that person has the legal standing to file lawsuits against anyone who may have had a contributing role in the accident -- the other driver, the owner of the road, the engineer who designed the road, etc. The bystander walking by who witnessed the accident, on the other hand, has suffered no harm and therefore has no standing to file a lawsuit.
With that in mind, I'll ask the question again: Who can demonstrate harm from an OSHA mandate like this and therefore has the standing to file a lawsuit in a U.S. court of law?
“With that in mind, I’ll ask the question again:”
Your question has been answered. But keep asking if that floats your boat.
That sounds like a John Roberts ruling. Dershowitz knows the players. :)
IMO, everyone.
No offense, but your opinion on this matter is worthless because (as I've demonstrated) it is flat-out wrong.
Thanks for your input.
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.