Posted on 01/08/2022 11:53:06 AM PST by TexasGurl24
I did not know that, that's very good news.
“Article VI of the US constitution, US government is superior to the states.”
Courts have ruled numerous times against federal mandates directed at states.
Start with US v Printz, which declared that states are sovereign and can’t be forced to carry out federal mandates.
This is interesting. I’m glad to see some pushback. The feds can push back harder if they want to. But will they want to? Will they dare? As I understand it, the federal OSHA mandate provides monetary penalties for noncompliance. Can they levy those fines directly even if the state says they’re not enforcing the mandate? I’m in Iowa, and I’ll confess I don’t understand all of what’s going on here.
Courts can reverse. Used to be that federal minimum wage was unconstitutional. Schecter Poultry.
My statement was as to the court position - when the court says the feds are superior, the feds are superior.
“My statement was as to the court position - when the court says the feds are superior, the feds are superior.”
And courts say that states are sovereigns. Can’t have it both ways - the feds are superior to exert their mandates while states are also sovereign to ignore federal mandates.
You know where this leads...
Lip service.
-- You know where this leads... --
A bad place.
“While they’re at it they may as well stop helping the Feds with their illegitimate gun laws”
Which ones?
I can now carry without a permit
“Lip service.”
A simplistic analysis on your part.
It doesn't take much to express this battlefield. If the feds choose to cede, and they have, that is the status while it lasts. When they choose to own, they own.
I know of no exception.
On a related note, why were property taxes still due from landlords who weren’t allowed to evict non-paying tenants? Why didn’t our taxes dip when crossing guards and janitors were idled during “remote learning”?
It is clear our gubmint caste will never do anything to endanger its funding; it is the de facto party (with Dem politicians as the face of it) that runs our daily lives.
I am in Iowa.
Our corporate office has said this does not matter, as it is still being tried in the courts.
Basically the risk is to high to non comply.
Iowa has a state plan and Iowa isn’t enforcing the federal OSHA standard at all. They have their own rules.
The corporation is lying if they say anything else.
OSHA trumps Iowa OSHA.
Full stop.
Iowa has a division empowered by OSHA to enforce OSHA regulations on the state. Some states do the same with the EPA.
But in a case of a state being less restrictive than the federal level you go to the federal level unless you want to spend a lot of money to lose the case.
I have been doing this for over 20 years, and am pretty familiar with how regulatory things work here. What this does is give Iowa companies some breathing room till the fed enforcement starts. Saying “Well we do this in Iowa” to OSHA is a guaranteed way to end up with a big fine. Saying “Well this was the instruction given to us by our local regulatory arm. How can we come into compliancy?” Is a path to a reduced finding (it happens more often than you would imagine) but you will be forced to the federal standard if the federal agency chooses to enforce. Full stop.
Now all this depends on the USSC ruling. If I had to guess, Kim thinks it will be a strike down to the mandate.
Any thoughts on what appears to be AJ Alito’s discussion of a possible administrative stay apparently not being implemented (yet)?
I’m just wondering what the lack of a decision, stay, etc either portends (or not).
There really isn’t a rush until fines for testing violations kick in come February.
I think we will hear something before the end of January.
Nope. It’s not that simple. The state plans are required to provide “at least as effective protection” as the federal osha requirements. Iowa (and a couple of other states) have determined that them their own COVID procedures do just that.
Now it’s true that OSHA can try to revoke those state plans if they actually don’t provide that level of protection, but that means substantial and protracted litigation on that front.
To revoke a state plan: OSHA has to navigate this mess:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1902/1902.49
That won’t be easy.
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.