Federal vaccine mandate usurps state and judicial power
The Biden administration announced a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for U.S. companies with 100 or more workers. The mandate will be enforced starting Jan. 4, 2022.
As reported by the Associated Press, the Biden administration recently announced a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for the U.S. companies with 100 or more workers. This mandate will be enforced for 84 million workers starting Jan. 4, 2022 and features varying levels of public and private implementation on a state-by-state basis, with enforcement duties relegated to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
This OSHA-enforced mandate states that businesses must “require their employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested for the virus weekly and wear masks on the job.” Violations of this mandate come with a $13,653 per-instance fine to guilty businesses, and employees who do not not comply with their employer’s developed vaccination plan will face termination of employment.
The constitutionality of this mandate plan — which was created by the executive office and relegated to an executive agency, a part of the ever growing administrative state — has been directly questioned in the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Questions on the constitutionality of this order have seen the Fifth Circuit Court temporarily order a halt to the mandate’s required preparations for the Jan. 4 deadline. Five separate appeals courts saw 26 states challenge the Biden administration’s diktat.
Legal precedents for this mandate to be upheld are shaky at best. The most prominent of historical precedents — the 1905 Supreme Court decision of Jacobson v. Massachusetts — upheld the right of a U.S. state to enforce compulsory vaccination. This decision refers explicitly to a state government’s, i.e. the government of the state of Massachusetts, ability to use its power of the police state to supersede individual liberty. In this case, it was Henning Jacobson who did not want to take a vaccine for smallpox, and who was compelled by the state level government to take the vaccine — not the federal government, and not an administrative agency of the executive branch.
The efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines is not what I am concerned about, and the vaccines do their job in reducing the likelihood of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. What I am concerned about is the executive office of the president and the administrative state making medical decisions for me. Another person’s vaccination status is unimportant to me, because I have been vaccinated. I am in charge of my own medical well-being and no one else’s. Individual cost-risk assessments — and a sense of individual agency — are of the utmost importance when making personal decisions such as this.
As far as I am concerned, President Biden’s rhetoric on 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 intention 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’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.”
I don’t want to empower the executive branch to the point where its ability to determine what is a legitimate claim of personal freedom is invincible, and I definitely don’t want it running roughshod over state governments. The federal government should be incentivizing people to vaccinate, not telling them that upon vaccination only the government can protect them from the unvaccinated. An additional cause for concern — especially in the American system of checks and balances — is how the Biden administration continues to blatantly disregard the judicial branch’s legal stay of the mandate program.
Carlos • Dec 2, 2021 at 3:28 PM
Also…and this is addressed to the author of the article….
It does not follow from Biden’s statement:
“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…”
…that what he actually meant was “we’re going to protect vaccinated workers from the unvaccinated”, as you state in the article. That is your interpretation, to be sure, but, in fact, the unvaccinated are equally protected by the mandate because there is a decreased probability of spread with a greater percentage of the populace being vaccinated.
So the real bottom line is: we’re going to protect everyone. Even those who don’t understand germ theory and how vaccines work.
As others have pointed out in these comments, your personal freedom to be unvaccinated ends where it affects the health of others. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept.
Mike • Dec 6, 2021 at 7:11 AM
I am sure you’re just a well meaning guy you’re just blinded by your narrow media view. You think ivermectin is horse paste, probably believe Rittenhouse shot a black man, probably the Russians helped trump in 2016, that Jessie smollet was the victim of a hate crime, and the media box people can’t lie. Read for yourself dude and the word will be opened to you. You’re living in a matrix, morpheous is offering you a red pill or blue pill. Take the red pill and think for yourself.
Alumni - 2013 • Nov 23, 2021 at 12:00 AM
History does not respect those so eager to cede liberty, nor does it reflect kindly on attempts to compel behavior.
Good work speaking up for those without a voice – or those who are harshly censored for sharing a dissonant opinion; especially at Oakland.
Cody E. • Nov 18, 2021 at 8:48 PM
This is a great editorial, Tanner.
I suppose my thinking on the question of mandates is thus: no individual freedoms are absolute. This is part of the social contract, right? Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
There are substantial third-party consequences to remaining an active member of a community without being vaccinated, and the costs of that choice are born by us all and not solely the unvaccinated individual. If the choice to remain unvaccinated was without consequence to the rest of us, I would support absolutely the right to remain unvaccinated, however ill-informed. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.
I agree that mandates represent an intrusion into one’s personal freedom, but I also see a reasonable basis for insisting that members of a community vaccinate to remain a part of that community. Note, too, that the federal mandate allows for a variety of exemptions while attempting to mitigate the third-party costs of remaining unvaccinated (e.g., regular testing).
mike • Nov 23, 2021 at 10:31 AM
Cody,
the vaccine doesn’t necessarily stop even vaccinated individuals from getting covid or spreading covid. It does however protect people from serious symptoms, hospitalization, and death. It is a self protection method.
For those of us who have done the personal risk assessment concluded that the risk of getting an jab developed with brand new technology is not worth the risk when the consequence for infection is a bad headache and the snivels, maybe. For a young guy like me who eats healthy and works out it makes no sense. especially with therapies available such as monoclonals ad ivermectin,
What really puts the nail in the coffin for this decision is the zealous fervor the media shuts down debate, lies, and changes course on what to do. do we mask? double mask? triple mask? Do we need two jabs?5 jabs? yearly Jabs? what is it? Are there vaccine alternatives? what about early treatment options? this makes those of us who think and pay attention skeptical of anything these institutions would tell us to do.
Carlos • Dec 2, 2021 at 12:55 PM
Oh Mike.
The vaccine does, in fact, greatly reduce the probability of spread because the virus replicates fewer times in the body of a vaccinated person, creating fewer variants, than in an unvaccinated person. The unvaccinated are petri dishes for this virus to replicate and mutate.
Also, the technology is not, as you say, “brand new”. mRNA vaccines have been in development for decades. The reason they were able to be rolled out so quickly for this specific strain is massive federal funding in response to a massive public health threat.
Come to the library and get a book on the 1918 flu and read about how bad things can get without modern medical intervention. With a public health decision like vaccine mandates, you are dealing with probabilities, not absolutes.
And monoclonals and horse paste? Dude, talk to a doctor. Don’t trust youtube, the Final Call or Fox news as a source of sound medical advice. This virus does not care if you are young, healthy and work out. You are not invincible. And more importantly, neither are the medically vulnerable and young children like my 3yo daughter who is ineligible to be vaccinated at this stage. For her sake, get please get vaccinated.
Mike • Dec 3, 2021 at 3:50 PM
I never said the vaccine doesn’t work. But it does have a waning effect, it does not prevent infection, it prevents serious hospitalization and death. Vaccinated people can still get sick and still spread the virus.
By brand new technology I am referring to the very limited data on mRNA vaccines and their effect on the human body. I would encourage you to look at the VAERS data the a federal court ordered the FDA release December the second. It is a report from late December to late February. 1200 died and 40k reported injuries. About half of which were serious.
Public health measures taken to address the pandemic as per my previous complaint with the government response have been informed by a media effort to squash one side of the debate.
The fact you think ivermectin is horse paste only and not for human use demonstrates youre either ignorant and ill informed or a blind ideologue . I would encourage you to read papers on it and it’s use globally. It is indeed used to treat horses, bu, like many other medications, is used in humans.
You are correct in saying I should speak with a doctor, we did and he did not recommend. The virus actually does care if you are young and healthy. Those with robust functioning immune systems are less likely to die. Most people who die from Covid or are hospitalized often have underlying health conditions. This is not a one size fits all approach but more of a general rule.
Anonymous • Nov 18, 2021 at 9:28 AM
“Another person’s [drunk driving behaviors] is unimportant to me, because I [don’t drink and drive].”
See how ignorant and illogical that sounds? It is no different.
If caring about others is not enough of an incentive (it should be), at least care about yourself. Being vaccinated in not a magic force shield and it does not completely stop the spread.
Maybe caring about other people should not be “unimportant” to you.