“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors?”
Odd that they think this is an unanticipated question. It’s precisely the question. Delegation is not supposed to be an endrun around the Constitution allowing the President and his bureaucracy to write laws at their pleasure. The Federal Register is supposed to contain regulations that implement laws, not make them.
No, they are not effective as it has been scientifically demonstrated that the efficiency wears off in a few months and the individual is left WORSE off.
Sounds like the judge is saying the government can compel people to get the vaxx, but that the method they chose was incorrect?
I smell a rat.
But that authority to require citizens get vaccines:
1) The authority to mandate medical treatments is not in the Constitution so is limited to the States
2) Experimental (i.e EUA) drugs / vaccines, by LAW, can not be mandated
3) No drug or vaccine that has a high probability of harm to an individual can be mandated. You can't require a person to chop off their own hand or blind an eye or commit suicide.
4) Because of #3, the risk of medical harm must be evaluated on a case by case basis -AND- The person who carries the risk (patient) is the one who has to make the assessment.
5) I also assert that collective punishment (denial of services) is a form of Bill of Attainder and is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
This author is an utter moron. This is a weak response that get it right on legal ground while trying to appease the Leftist media machine.
This is a gutless judge trying to be on both sides. Want to see a Court that got it right? Read the 5th Circut court decision.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60845-CV0.pdf
“This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are.”
Citation needed.
> “This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are.”
Nope.
> “Nor is this a case about whether the government, at some level and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines. It can.”
Not if they aren’t proven effective which they haven’t been.
Judge is, like the law, an a$$.
But he deflected nicely, so will give him that.
Of course the law shouldn’t support a political compromise but a strict interpretation of law and constitutionality.
This was exactly the right decision, for exactly the right reasons.
The good judge left out something, like, “These shots are not vaccines. They are sort of the opposite of a vaccine.”
Reads to me like Deep State is about to allow the courts to get it out of the vaxx mandate.
Deep State’s going cut bait.
Can’t wait to see what the cabal tries next.
“This decision fits the textbook definition of diplomacy”
Judges are not appointed to engage in political diplomacy.