Biden Joins the All-Stars of Constitutional Contempt

 

"What the New York Times calls a 'novel use of a law on workplace safety' is an invented power that violates the letter and spirit of Article II’s limits ...But as has been the case for much of Washington's decade-long journey into constitutional contempt, this one will end up as pure partisan applesauce." - The Dispatch

Related:

5983 reads

There are 63 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

"Partisan applesauce" is an apt phrase. The first casualty in all the major issues of the last few years has been truth... with nuance of any kind close behind.

For what it's worth, I'm pro-vaccine. I think it's foolhardy to be against lockdowns and masks and also be against vaccines. (It's like being against poverty but also against inheritance, charity, welfare, and employment).

Employers strongly encouraging vaccination is a good idea, and requiring vaccination and/or testing of employees seems pretty easily defensible to me as well.

If Congress passed legislation requiring employers to require vaccination, we wouldn't have any Constitutional grounds for objecting. But the executive branch doesn't have the authority to decree that.

So, please, let's separate two ideas that really are distinct:

  • Being pro-vaccine
  • Being pro-federal vaccine mandate

These aren't the same thing at all.

... and no, it doesn't matter if the president in question is 'our guy' or 'their guy.'

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Robert Byers's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

If Congress passed legislation requiring employers to require vaccination, we wouldn't have any Constitutional grounds for objecting. But the executive branch doesn't have the authority to decree that.

That's not correct Aaron.  If Congress did pass such legislation, there would be a strong Constitutional objection--Congress has no enumerated power to pass such a law.  Given the current sorry state of Commerce Clause rulings, it might well stand judicial review if they did.  But under the actual Constitution, Congress doesn't get to unilaterally decree an outcome they desire any more than the President does.  The quaint notion that the Constitution limits the power of government in order to protect individual rights may be out of style today, but it's still correct.  So Congress decreeing such a mandate wouldn't be any more proper than the President issuing one.

Bert Perry's picture

Really, this is all about a failure to persuade the populace to do the things that are needed.  If you can't persuade, you try to force people to do it, and the trouble with that is, as Robert points out, that it's flatly unconstitutional.

Regarding previous state and local mandates for masks and lockdowns, the interesting thing is that statistically speaking, they don't work.  For that matter, the protection afforded by a mask isn't that good--about 25% reduced rate of transmission if I remember right.  So if people wear a mask, but go out 30% more often than they would otherwise, you're net negative in the results. (number may not be precise, but a mask is not exactly body armor vs. COVID)

Biden's in a tough spot.  If he doesn't throw out red meat for his base (really the far left), his party hangs him out to dry.  But it's that very habit of throwing out red meat for his base that is alienating most of the country, and making it impossible for even a mandate to work.  He's got a lot of making up to do, and I don't know that he has either the temperament or ability.  

A parallel issue is that Fauci has messed up--arguably lied--about the likely links between WIV and COVID, about NIH funding of gain of function research, about the sending of COVID positive patients into nursing homes, and about the sending north of COVID positive illegal immigrants.  He's got some fessing up, apologizing, and really resigning to do over that.  The thought I have is "if Fauci is going to mess up these huge issues, and he's the supposed expert, exactly what am I achieving by wearing my face mask and working from home?"  I'm guessing I'm not alone here.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

I think what Biden is faced with is as follows:

  • 55% to 60% of Americans support a vaccine mandate (depending on which survey you look at).  Regardless of the exact number, it is clear that a majority of Americans support a vaccine mandate.
  • More than half of US companies have implemented or are in the process of implementing vaccine mandates.  A number of large business lobbying groups have been putting pressure on the administration to put into place a vaccine mandate.  They are viewing this as providing clarity around a return to work scenario, which many businesses are having a challenging time navigating.
  • Nearly 75% of adults (18 or older) have received a vaccine shot, clearly indicating that a large majority are not concerned about the safety of the vaccine and/or view any risk of the shot to be less than the risk of COVID
  • A further @50% of adults who have not received the shot are ambivalent toward getting a shot and would be willing to get a shot if they were mandated to get a shot.  This means there are just about 13% of adults who are highly resistant to getting a shot.  As a result Biden has offered a reasonable exemption (weekly COVID testing at cost).
  • There is strong support for vaccine mandates that have been tested by the courts, including the Supreme court over the last 117 years.  There will definitely be challenges, but the footing is fairly solid.
  • The unvaccinated is starting to have a heavy burden on our health care system.  Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan research group, has estimated that in June and July of this year, the cost of COVID that is not covered by insurance and therefore born by the system as a whole was $2.3B.  It was also estimated that the unvaccinated contributed to 84% of those costs.  Those costs are ultimately born by those individuals who purchase insurance plans through higher premiums.

I am not so concerned with this order.  First, he did not mandate vaccines.  He issued an order to OSHA to develop a vaccine mandate that follows a few of his key principles but is aligned legally with OSHA's mandate.  He seems to be directing the right agency to make a rule that is clearly in their scope of responsibility.  Second, he has offered a very broad exemption.  No one needs to fill out a form, they just need to get tested once a week.  The costs of that testing has been negotiated by the federal government.  With the exemption, it will probably be hard to indicate that this order from OSHA will be deemed illegal.  Third, there appears to be broad support across the population, the legislative branch and it appears to be within the legal framework of the federal government as well as upheld by the court systems.  I am struggling to see where this is an over reach, or as many vaccine hesitant people have stated,  "a tyrrany that must be resisted at all costs."

T Howard's picture

dgszweda wrote:

I am struggling to see where this is an over reach, or as many vaccine hesitant people have stated,  "a tyrrany that must be resisted at all costs."

First, I'm pro-vaccine. I took Moderna's vaccine.

Second, I think the concern is that the federal gov't is mandating its citizens and private companies put something into our bodies.

Andrew K's picture

Pro-vaccine as well. Encourage everyone to get it. I got the Chinese Sinovac -- which isn't great, but it's what was available to me. And I got it.

The mandate is a terrible idea. Frankly, it doesn't matter if it's only 40% that's "against the mandate" if those 40% are violently against the mandate, if you follow me. And many of them are.

Let's split the unvaccinated into two camps as well, before we make too many comments about them being the source of so much trouble: those who have had covid, and those who have not.

For those who have, leave them alone. If the latest studies are to be trusted, their immunity is better than yours.

dgszweda's picture

T Howard wrote:

 

First, I'm pro-vaccine. I took Moderna's vaccine.

Second, I think the concern is that the federal gov't is mandating its citizens and private companies put something into our bodies.

First, state governments have been mandating school vaccines.  For most people in the US, this has been a reality for their entire lifetime.  I believe it is 5 states that offer no exemptions.  Second, there is no mandate to put anything into anyone's bodies.  You have the option to 1) get the vaccine, or 2) get tested on a weekly basis.  If someone is so concerned about putting something into your body than get tested.

Robert Byers's picture

dgszweda wrote:

With the exemption, it will probably be hard to indicate that this order from OSHA will be deemed illegal.  Third, there appears to be broad support across the population, the legislative branch and it appears to be within the legal framework of the federal government as well as upheld by the court systems.  I am struggling to see where this is an over reach, or as many vaccine hesitant people have stated,  "a tyranny that must be resisted at all costs."

Tell me you don't understand the Tenth Amendment without telling me you don't understand the Tenth Amendment.  But don't feel too bad.  You are far from alone in that failing.  Paul Harvey was right when he wrote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."  This is about way more than shots.  

Paul Henebury's picture

If the msm would actually report the many opposing views of highly qualified medical professionals like Dr. Robert Malone (who of course has been smeared) I might trust them a bit more.  Malone and others have stated that you cannot vaccinate your way out of a coronavirus pandemic; it will mutate into worse forms if you try to do it.  It is not like smallpox.  

Here's a brief article from someone that was deleted from all the main outlets: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/12/they-are-controlling-yo...

Why ban it?  What is going on?  Why not allow MD's to treat COVID with medicines like ivermectin?    

I am not against vaccines, but we don't even know what's in these new vaccines, although some research has found that the spike protein accumulates in various parts of the body such as reproductive organs.  The fear is it will make young people infertile.   

I agree with Robert above.  There's more going on than "public safety."  

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

dgszweda's picture

Robert Byers wrote:

 

Tell me you don't understand the Tenth Amendment without telling me you don't understand the Tenth Amendment.  But don't feel too bad.  You are far from alone in that failing.  Paul Harvey was right when he wrote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."  This is about way more than shots.  

We will have to see what the courts decide.  It is much more nuanced than just saying "Tenth Amendment".  You have the Commerce Clause the Occupational Health and Safety Act and others.  The Supreme Court, if it decides, will have to determine it.

I would argue it is not about more than shots.  If a state governor had enacted a vaccine mandate, the same people would be screaming.  How do I know?  Because the same people screamed about states imposing a mask mandate.  The conservative side has no problem ignoring the 10th Amendment when the Administration is conservative and they are imposing a conservative aligned mandate.  Why do I say that?  Because when Trump stated, "When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be. … It’s total. The governors know that."  No conservative or Trump supporter batted an eyelash to his statement.  Trump signed an executive order directing the HHS to require health care providers to provide transparency of costs.  Most constitutional observers stated that this was a violation of the 10th Amendment.  No one on FoxNews raised a concern, so it isn't an issue.

I have no doubt that this will be challenged in court.  And we will have to see what happens.  My gut says that it will stick.  We will see though.

dgszweda's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:

I am not against vaccines, but we don't even know what's in these new vaccines, although some research has found that the spike protein accumulates in various parts of the body such as reproductive organs.  The fear is it will make young people infertile.   

I agree with Robert above.  There's more going on than "public safety."  

First, the spike proteins created by the vaccines don't accumulate in the reproductive organs.  That is generated from people who have absolutely no clue about how the mRNA vaccine works.  I don't have time to post all the links of the studies, but the mRNA in the vaccines have been tagged with radionucleotides in a broad range of studies to see where it goes.  The vast majority is within 1cm of the injection site, practically all of the rest is transported into the local lymph node (under your arm).  It is not injected into the bloodstream, so it doesn't go around the bloodstream.  The mRNA is absorbed into the cell via the lipid carrier.  The spike protein is made on the cell that it is absorbed into and the cell is destroyed by the immune system.  This is so well studied.  Practically all spike proteins have been eliminated in less than 4 weeks.

BTW, we know what is 100% in all of these vaccines and we know exactly what happens to every piece of substance in the vaccine.  The mRNA vaccines are unlike anything before in terms of understanding.  Not only that, but they leverage each person's natural mechanisms to create a defence mechanism.

Everyone, states, "there is more going on", but no one can identify the underlying secret agency that is able to manipulate the federal government, over 100 foreign governments, health agencies all across the world and university and research centers.  But somehow there is someone there.

Bert Perry's picture

They've worked in the schools at a state level for decades, yes, but with most states having conscience exemptions.  I don't see how you get around that.  There is also the issue that the state has more authority in the schools it funds and mandates than in private workplaces.

And even so, I remember meeting an OB nurse who'd gotten whooping cough due to hippies around Boulder (where I lived at the time) not vaccinating their kids.  So it certainly wasn't foolproof.

So you've really got state/federal differences and the 10th Amendment, whether or not the CDC legislation even pretends to grant the authority the Biden administration says it has, and then the difference between public and private institutions.  I wouldn't be surprised if even the liberal wing of the Court said "no" on that one.

Probably worst yet is that those who haven't gotten vaccinated yet really resent things being "forced down their throats."  What's desperately needed is a dose of honesty and actual data, admit there is a real risk, but the alternative is the possibility of things going horrendously wrong with the disease.

Instead, people who were significantly put out of work by the lockdowns because you can't do factory work from home are being told they're to blame while they watch Fauci skate for his funding of WIV gain of function research on bat virii, and for his failure to speak up regarding nursing homes and sending illegals north with COVID.  They "flipped the bird" at the political class in a major way by electing Trump in 2016, and they're already ticked at what Biden's done with the sacrifices their sons made in Afghanistan.

Even if by some odd chance the courts uphold this one, it was an incredibly foolish move by Biden.  He's throwing away the credibility of the public health system (with the help of Fauci and Murthy, sadly) in exactly the same way he's thrown away the credibility of U.S. alliances with the disastrous way he withdrew from Afghanistan.  As his former boss warned, never underestimate the ability of Biden to **** things up.

(but at least we don't have mean tweets anymore....)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

T Howard's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Even if by some odd chance the courts uphold this one, it was an incredibly foolish move by Biden.  He's throwing away the credibility of the public health system (with the help of Fauci and Murthy, sadly) in exactly the same way he's thrown away the credibility of U.S. alliances with the disastrous way he withdrew from Afghanistan.

Catastrophize much, Bert?

Paul Henebury's picture

So do I believe you on mRNA vaccines or do I believe the guy who invented mRNA technology

"This is so well studied."  These vaccines have been rushed and you say we have a lot of research?  These vaccines (as opposed to most vaccines) do NOT stay in one place.  Where are you getting your stuff from?  A Viral Immunologist Byram Bridle (who has also been smeared) contradicts you!   You say we know 100% what's in these vaccines.  Okay, that's cool, what's in them?     

Look, I'm no anti-vaxxer.  My wife has had it and I may have it.  But I have doctor friends who tell me they would never give the vaccine to their kids.  I just want to hear both sides.  If one side is stopping the other side from being heard something fishy is going on.  

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Bert Perry's picture

T Howard wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Even if by some odd chance the courts uphold this one, it was an incredibly foolish move by Biden.  He's throwing away the credibility of the public health system (with the help of Fauci and Murthy, sadly) in exactly the same way he's thrown away the credibility of U.S. alliances with the disastrous way he withdrew from Afghanistan.

Catastrophize much, Bert?

Read some overseas papers and tell me I'm overstating things.  The British government is already on record as saying they cannot depend on the U.S. to honor their commitments after the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle.  On the 'rona side, right after Cuomo left office, they reviewed the records and added 15,000 deaths to their death toll.

I understand mistakes, but there is a certain point where public health officials are being caught flat out lying about the situation.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

AndyE's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:

So do I believe you on mRNA vaccines or do I believe the guy who invented mRNA technology?

  Malone did some early research but, as is common in science, many others expanded on and advanced his initial efforts to produce what we have today.  My take is that he is not happy that he was not able to do that further research himself, and that he has not received the credit he deserves for his contributions.  He is not exactly unbiased in his evaluation of the current situation.

Paul Henebury wrote:
"This is so well studied."  These vaccines have been rushed and you say we have a lot of research?  These vaccines (as opposed to most vaccines) do NOT stay in one place.  Where are you getting your stuff from?  .....  You say we know 100% what's in these vaccines.  Okay, that's cool, what's in them?   
If you are really interested, here is a source that explains how they work and what is in them. It's not a secret.  The Dawn of mRNS vaccines

dgszweda's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:

So do I believe you on mRNA vaccines or do I believe the guy who invented mRNA technology

"This is so well studied."  These vaccines have been rushed and you say we have a lot of research?  These vaccines (as opposed to most vaccines) do NOT stay in one place.  Where are you getting your stuff from?  A Viral Immunologist Byram Bridle (who has also been smeared) contradicts you!   You say we know 100% what's in these vaccines.  Okay, that's cool, what's in them?     

Look, I'm no anti-vaxxer.  My wife has had it and I may have it.  But I have doctor friends who tell me they would never give the vaccine to their kids.  I just want to hear both sides.  If one side is stopping the other side from being heard something fishy is going on.  

Dr. Malone started some research on this decades ago.  It is questionable on whether you can state he invented the technology.  It has been in a deep state of development over the last 20 years, past when he was really involved in it.  Also Dr. Malone, spreads a lot of misinformation.  That is why his stuff is pulled from the web often and he is loved by the anti-vax crowd.  You won't see him show up on non-fringe sites.  Dr. Bidle also has his stuff pulled all the time.  If you want to put your trust in these guys, go ahead, I can't stop you.

Vaccine Contents (Moderna mRNA):

  • mRNA (only active ingredient)
  • Lipids: SM-102, PEG-2000-DMG, Cholesterol, DSPC
  • Acetic Acid
  • Tromethamine & Tromethamine hydrochloride
  • Sodium Acetate
  • Sucrose

Do you really think the FDA approves items without knowing every ingredient in them and their corresponding actions?

This is still a bit deep for some people, but this is the most simple document I have seen that outlines how this works and why spike proteins don't spread.  I can go into this deeper if you like, I was a vaccine researcher.  Also, the outline in this article is not just something that someone is stating.  There are studies made across multiple countries and independent research agencies, such as universities that confirm and outline how this works.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/spike-protein-behavior

Both the biochemical pathways and the physical pathways are well understood.  This vaccine was not rushed at all.  I think what people miss is that 1) the delivery mechanism has been in the works of being developed for almost 20 years.  I think what people miss is how all of this technology that has been in the works was coming together at the exact same time as COVID was starting to come into existence in the wild.  Pfizer has full approval right now and no steps were skipped.

In addition, vaccines don't carry long term side effects.  You can't confuse this with medicine that builds up to therapuetic levels and is introduced into the bloodstream.  Practically no side effects are seen from vaccines after the 4 week mark.  That is because the elements of the vaccine are disposed of rather quickly.  The mRNA is typically out of the body within 12 hours, but could be as long as 2-4 days.  It is removed from the body through natural means and is unable to live outside of the cell.  The spike proteins are attacked by your immune system and destroyed.  Anything else is moved through the intercellular fluid, to the lymph node (the garbage can of the body) and naturally eliminated.  The vaccine has been injected into people now for almost 18 months across 5.7 Billion shots and no real side effects have been noted.  This indicates that no serious side effects are to be expected across the vaccines and no rare side effects are expected.

BTW, 98% of all doctors in the US are fully vaccinated against COVID.  If there was such a huge issue with this, as proclaimed on far right channels and by anti-vax groups, you would not see the numbers anywhere close to this.

dgszweda's picture

What is even more interesting about the mRNA technology is that we can tell you how many strands of the mRNA was in your injection (across a standard distribution curve), and we know with complete certainty the codon sequence for the mRNA.  The beauty of it, is that it can only enter the cytoplasm of the cell and not the nucleus.  In addition, it only can make a protein and that protein can only be expressed on the cellular wall that the mRNA is present in.  As soon as the mRNA is translated, it is destroyed by the cell, in the same natural process that is carried within your body millions of times.

The issue has been that mRNA, and RNA in general is very fragile.  This is why it must be stored in cold temperatures.  Injecting it into your body would not work.  It needs to be protected and it needs help entering the cellular wall.  This is where SM-102 comes into play.  Anti-vaxxers quickly showed MSDS sheets showing that you can't use SM-102 in the human body.  It circulated throughout all of the fringe news sites, but the MSDS was for something else.  SM-102 is the propriety nano-lipid "packaging" that Moderna had.  It combined that packaging with the mRNA and it now had a very stable and safe process to deliver the mRNA.  

I believe there are probably about 20 studies out there that have attached a radio-nucleotide to the mRNA and injected it into rats, mice, rabbits and monkeys.  They can then track each strand.  This is what was used to ensure safety and the movement of the substances after injection.  Something you can't easily do with other vaccines.

This is not the first delivery of mRNA, or using this delivery mechanism.  They have been doing it for some time across a few other therapies.  What is nice about mRNA is:

  1. The process is very well understood and the mechanism relies heavily on the bodies natural processes
  2. If COVID changes, it is easy to adjust the sequence on the mRNA to combat changes to the spike protein configuration
  3. It is easy to produce in large quantities.  You don't need these massive reaction vessels like you do in legacy vaccine models where you need to grow the cultures of the inactivated virus
Paul Henebury's picture

Thanks Andy,

Of course I understand everyone has biases, Dr Malone included (and he is pretty open about them). 

Appreciate the info. 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul Henebury's picture

Your data is appreciated.  I shall study it as well as I am able.  I understand science moves on,  Malone may be what you say he is, or he may be extremely knowledgeable.  My point is that such voices aren't being heard.  You claim that these doctors are being ignored because of bad science.  If you think the gatekeepers just pull "misinformation" from the web to protect the ignorant then we are at polar opposites.  I could counter but we will not get very far.  Evidently scientists at the University of Almeria in Spain tested the Pfizer vaccine and discovered high concentrations of graphine oxide, which is not good stuff. 

I am grateful for your info, but other qualified experts are concerned about the effects of the vaccines, both short and long-term.  

 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Barry L.'s picture

I'm vaccinated and so is my wife. I'm ok with the vaccine because I'm 54 and probably have ill effects in me from other lifestyle choices that  one more ain't going to matter. I urge anyone 45 or older to get it.

....But, If the vaccine is safe, then how come Moderna and Pfizer have a special liability exemption on it?  To be truthful not enough time for testing has passed to assure the vaccine is safe or doesn't have detrimental effects. We are in a hurry because we desire for something to work to get rid of it and thus we are rushing the vaccine. I don't blame younger folks for being hesitant.

Also, with regards to the mandate. Congress and staff are exempt from it. Businesses with less than 100 employees are exempt.  Why, as an employer of over 100, do I have to ostracize 25% of my employees who most likely will leave to work for a smaller firm?  Doesn't sound like "science" guided this mandate or ALL businesses and institutions would be under it.

 

dgszweda's picture

Paul Henebury wrote:

Your data is appreciated.  I shall study it as well as I am able.  I understand science moves on,  Malone may be what you say he is, or he may be extremely knowledgeable.  My point is that such voices aren't being heard.  You claim that these doctors are being ignored because of bad science.  If you think the gatekeepers just pull "misinformation" from the web to protect the ignorant then we are at polar opposites.  I could counter but we will not get very far.  Evidently scientists at the University of Almeria in Spain tested the Pfizer vaccine and discovered high concentrations of graphine oxide, which is not good stuff. 

I am grateful for your info, but other qualified experts are concerned about the effects of the vaccines, both short and long-term.  

Paul,

I would encourage you to do further research.  I am not sure where you are getting your information, but if something seems odd, i.e. "99% of Pfizer vaccine has graphene oxide", I would question it and do further research.  First, it doesn't even make sense that graphene oxide is in anything at these levels.  Graphene Oxide is brown.  The report from this doctor is widely discredited, and even discredited by the university itself.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-grapheneoxide-vaccine/fact-che...

I would argue there are either none, or hardly any qualified experts that are concerned about the effects of the vaccines.  If your concern mirrors those listed above about graphene, than you are clearly getting information from fringe sources.

The voices are being heard from even this doctor in Spain.  It is researched and rejected because it is not good science.  You say they are not heard but there are pages listing the problems with their analysis, that analysis is then quickly rejected.  This is how good science works.  What you are seeing is that an anti-vax individual/media outlet, finds this.  It sounds shocking and they say that it is ignored.  This resonates with those individuals who harbor a suspicion of science or mainstream.  They then lock onto this that there are qualified doctors that questioning this, and that Media Outlet X is finally giving the public information that has been hidden.  Since the common person doesn't understand science, they don't know how to question it.  It just sounds good and it resonates with their concerns.

dgszweda's picture

Barry L. wrote:

I'm vaccinated and so is my wife. I'm ok with the vaccine because I'm 54 and probably have ill effects in me from other lifestyle choices that  one more ain't going to matter. I urge anyone 45 or older to get it.

....But, If the vaccine is safe, then how come Moderna and Pfizer have a special liability exemption on it?  To be truthful not enough time for testing has passed to assure the vaccine is safe or doesn't have detrimental effects. We are in a hurry because we desire for something to work to get rid of it and thus we are rushing the vaccine. I don't blame younger folks for being hesitant.

Also, with regards to the mandate. Congress and staff are exempt from it. Businesses with less than 100 employees are exempt.  Why, as an employer of over 100, do I have to ostracize 25% of my employees who most likely will leave to work for a smaller firm?  Doesn't sound like "science" guided this mandate or ALL businesses and institutions would be under it.

Barry, all vaccine manufacturers since 1998 are exempt from liability.  42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, "No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988"

Nothing was rushed for the vaccine.  The vaccine was released following all regulatory procedures that the FDA sets out for vaccine approvals.  Maybe you don't trust John Hopkins, I don't know, but here is a great little fact sheet that they put out.  I have been involved in Clinical Trials for almost 15 years of my career, and nothing was shortcut that I could see.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavir...

Congress is exempt, because the executive branch cannot put out executive orders on the legislative branch.  It is called a separation of duties.  The reason why they chose companies of over 100 employees is that this includes only 1.9% of businesses and about 2/3rds of employees.  It would be almost impossible to quickly ramp up a process that covers every employer.  So my guess is that 1) it was a pragmatic purpose and 2) it would reach the target goals of vaccination that the administration has set.  But who knows that is just my guess.

Bert Perry's picture

That's one of the few legally tenable parts of it--more or less, Congress derives its regulatory authority from the Interstate Commerce clause, and hence a number of laws apply solely to businesses with over a certain number of employees.  Below that number, the assumption is made that the business is not engaged in interstate commerce and thus cannot be regulated in that way.

Regarding immunity, that was put through a GOP Congress as a response to the perceived reality that certain tort lawyers could persuade juries in certain jurisdictions of just about anything, receiving multimillion dollar awards for things like "he got drunk and peed on the third rail, so the CTA is liable".  (real case)  So immunity was chosen as a means of protecting the vital interest of having vaccines available.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

T Howard's picture

dgszweda wrote:

The voices are being heard from even this doctor in Spain.  It is researched and rejected because it is not good science.  You say they are not heard but there are pages listing the problems with their analysis, that analysis is then quickly rejected.  This is how good science works.  What you are seeing is that an anti-vax individual/media outlet, finds this.  It sounds shocking and they say that it is ignored.  This resonates with those individuals who harbor a suspicion of science or mainstream.  They then lock onto this that there are qualified doctors that questioning this, and that Media Outlet X is finally giving the public information that has been hidden.  Since the common person doesn't understand science, they don't know how to question it.  It just sounds good and it resonates with their concerns.

Off topic, but this reminds me of the reasoning often employed when discussing the "lost gospels." The church has suppressed the real truth about Jesus, and if the world knew the truth about the person and ministry of Jesus it would be shocking.

Thus, we get crazy stuff published about the gospel of Jesus' wife, etc that turns out to be discredited nonsense...

...much like the anti-vax propaganda that gets circulated.

dgszweda's picture

I would say the immunity was created for two key purposes.  First, it stemmed from that fact that a robust vaccine market has had the biggest impact to health in the last 200 years.  Protecting companies from tort suites ensures that a robust vaccine market is present in the US.  Second, it provides rapid protections for those who are injured as a result of a vaccine.  Claimants don't need to prove that the vaccine caused the injury in the same way that it needs to be in a court.  Injured individuals get paid very quickly.  The funds is supported by taxes on the vaccines themselves.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 claims have been paid out of like 12 Billion doses.  So the amount of real injuries from vaccines is very low.  I believe how they are paid out is that if an injury is listed as a potential side effect, and you claim it within the specified time you get the payment that is identified for the side effect.  There is some negotiation but not clear how all of that works.

JD Miller's picture

Based on VAERS data you have about a 1 in 12,000 chance of dying from the Covid 19 vaccine. (there is actually a greater chance of dying of second hand smoke - 1 in 8,000-, so I do understand why some will chose to take the vaccine- I also understand why many will not since there is at least some risk).

According to Pres. Biden, if you get the shot, you have a 1 in 160,000 chance of getting seriously ill- let alone dying.  (Second hand smokers are 20 times more dangerous to a vaccinated person than the unvaccinted are)  The vaccine provides quite good protection.  Still, those who are coercing others to take the shot are asking someone else to take a risk (far more of a risk than the unvaccinated are putting them under).  That does not sound at all like love for your neighbor.

Let me break it down another way- the chances of dying from the vaccine are about 14 times greater than the chance of getting seriously ill from Covid while vaccinated. 

 Another way to put it is that if you have already gotten the vax and you did not have a problem, then it looks like you are in good shape, but it would be really rude for you to now tell someone else that they have to take a way greater chance of dying just so you can reduce your chance of getting sick when it is not likely you will get sick anyway.  In other words, let each person look at the risks and make their own decisions and then let us show grace to others regardless of what they chose.

My wife has a medical condition that causes her doctors to tell her not be vaccinated.  In fact the CDC has recommended for years that neither her nor her close relatives be vaccinated because of her condition.  I have seen little to no grace among the vaccination fanatics for people like her.  That is sad.

The stats on how much the unvaccinated are costing are questionable at best.  Especially when someone who gets sick within 14 days of getting the vaccine is counted as unvaccinated.  Further, why didn't we pass an OSHA mandate on smoking or obesity years ago if that is the argument?  (especially when we consider that more people in the USA die of cancer every year than have died from Covid 19 in a year and half).  

Further, Oxford has shown that those with the vaccine still spread the disease.  What makes it difficult is that they are now spreading it without knowing it.  The unvaccinated are more likely to know they are sick and isolate so they do not spread it.  Further I have seen no indication that those with natural immunity do continue to spread it.  With that in mind we could also make an argument that the vaccinated are driving up our medical costs- I do not however think that is a reason to speak against vaccines.  

What it comes down to is that there are pros and cons to the vaccine and each person should have the individual soul liberty to weigh those pros and cons and we should show love and grace to those who make a different decision than we do (I understand our government does not look at things this way, but we as Christians should)

                

Paul Henebury's picture

I do not believe the 99% figure and perhaps my example was ill-advised since I advanced it as a possibility.  My concern is not so much whether it is right (or turns out to be so), but whether it is censored.  It is because of censorship that the fringes exist - and I am careful about whose opinions I listen to.  

As far as not understanding science is concerned; I am not a scientist, but I do understand the philosophy of science quite well (which many, not all, scientists do not).  Regardless, I appreciate your views even if I am not as sanguine as you are. 

This doesn't seem like a nut.  In fact, he seems very humble.  What's the deal?

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul Henebury's picture

This issue is not vaxxers v. anti-vaxxers, although the msm depict it that way.  In fact, I don't think I have listened to or ead an anti-vaxxer in this whole situation.  I am not against vaccinations but I am skeptical of this one, that's all. 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

dgszweda's picture

JD Miller wrote:

Based on VAERS data you have about a 1 in 12,000 chance of dying from the Covid 19 vaccine.                 

That is not how you look at VAERS data.  One of the biggest misconception is amateur epidemiologist looking at VAERS data and having no clue what it means and drawing conclusions from it.  You are not even in the correct universe in your proposed chances.  I don't have time to go into this all right now, but you are so far off.  Just do a search on Google for amateurs misinterpreting VAERS data.  Here is a small snippet from the CDC, dated September 7th.

 

"Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 375 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through September 7, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,439 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths pdf icon[1.4 MB, 40 pages]."

Pages