Kristi Burton Brown Keeps Using That Word

[TexasTowelie]

a sweeping new mandate from the Biden administration requiring millions of American workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Colorado Republican Party chairwoman Kristi Burton Brown fired back a volley of pointed if not exactly coherent words in opposition–including the one key word that gets thrown around so often in politics, by persons who know what the word means and those who do not–to CBS4’s Rick Sallinger.

The word in question is “unconstitutional.”

“I mean it’s absolutely unconstitutional. Joe Biden does not have the power to tell private business owners what to do with their employees,” she said.

As we discussed last Thursday ahead of the vaccine mandate’s formal announcement, it wasn’t that long ago when even most Republicans were uncontroversially in support of requiring vaccines for a range of childhood diseases. As recently as 2015 both Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman saw no political risk in endorsing mandatory vaccination for school-age children. As for the constitutionality of vaccine mandates?

In a timely in-depth story last week, Politico explains how The U.S. Supreme Court decided that question 115 years ago in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts:

The year was 1904, and when [Rev. Henning Jacobson’s] politically charged legal challenge to the $5 fine for failing to get vaccinated made its way to the Supreme Court, the justices had a surprise for Rev. Jacobson. One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. Jacobson, they ruled, must abide by the order of the Cambridge board of health or pay the penalty.

“There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good,” read the majority opinion. “On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”

Read more: https://www.coloradopols.com/diary/163553/kristi-burton-brown-keeps-using-that-word

[multigraincracker]

2. Guy from down the street stopped by

the other day. Started to talk about his distrust of cops. Me too I said, then he added that he was a “Constitutionalist”. I said me too and that they might as well throw out the Seventh Amendment because it means nothing. He ask what does it say?

[Thomas Hurt]

6. Your guy from down the street is a another one of those sovereign nutjobs.

That is what sovereigns called themselves 20 or 30 years ago.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. Jacobson V. Massachusetts is a bit different, to be fair ...

Number one, it involves a State's action, not a Federal action, and number 2, it involves the direct relationship between person and state. There's no 'employer' middleman.

So it does not necessarily apply to Biden's employer mandate.

My guess is that that this SCOTUS in particular is likely to throw it out, if a case on the subject reaches their bench.

The key issue I'd guess is the part where the POTUS is essentially deputizing private employers to act as vaccination enforcers, potentially against their will. Acting in this capacity costs them money by forcing an administrative burden on them.

I suspect SCOTUS would find that Congress could do this, but not POTUS.

[underpants]

4. OSHA Act of 1970 basis of authority is Article 1 Section 8 Commerce Clause

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016301442

Title:
Basis of authority
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1975/1975.2

The power of Congress to regulate employment conditions under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, is derived mainly from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. (Sec. 2(b), Public Law 91-596; U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3; "United States v. Darby," 312 U.S. 100.) The reach of the Commerce Clause extends beyond Federal regulation of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce so as to empower Congress to regulate conditions or activities which affect commerce even though the activity or condition may itself not be commerce and may be purely intrastate in character. ("Gibbons v. Ogden," 9 Wheat. 1, 195; "United States v. Darby," supra; "Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 117; and "Perez v. United States," 91 S. Ct. 1357 (1971).)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215840218

OSHA act of 1970 Section 5 Duties. "recognized hazards"

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/section5-duties

(a) Each employer --

(1)
29 USC 654
shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

(2)
shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.

(b)
Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

[abqtommy]

5. Be careful with the words you use, Kristi. Treason is definitely unconstitutional.