What an obnoxious comparison. Can one not be against what you described but generally be in favor of states' rights in other areas? Are we now required to give over all states' rights to avoid being labeled a racist because of actions taken by some in the past?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Seems like some forgot their was a bipartisan virtual summit meeting regarding vaccines with 6 governors ( 3 and 3 ) with Biden in May 2021.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I am not so sure the policy is valid. It will be challenged as unconstitutional. And statements will be looked at during those challenges. That's all....I don't know how it will turn out. I just have my doubts about it being valid.
You were not specific " in other areas " on your second post from your first post of a " strong supporter of state rights ". - Big difference, just pointing out facts.
Yes and no.
If the administration says, "For the good of all, we need to get everyone vaccinated; can we do that?" And the answer is "No." Then the next logical question is, "Well, what *can* we do to get the most people vaccinated?" And the answer is "Mandates for Federal employees, OSHA regs requiring vaccination OR testing."
That is not a bad faith intent that the courts will strike down. And that's because the intent to get everyone vaccinated is not a violation of people's rights (as already determined by SCOTUS precedent).
If the administration wanted to, say, get only people of color vaccinated; then that racist intent would certainly not be legal constitutionally. And then, in this scenario, the administration tried to get around that by targeted vaccine mandates for people on medicaid or food stamps as a way to target people of color, but they made up some baloney excuse, then *that* would be thrown out by the courts for having an illegal intent, even though theoretically, the government could technically do that apart from the bad faith intent.
That would be a fair point only if I said "ALL states' rights".
Just stop it. Seriously.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
We will see...you could be right.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
It’s pretty clear cut. OSHA has broad authority to regulate safety standards for private industry. If the legal challenge is going to be based on a retweet by the chief of staff then I stick by my statement that its actually 100% unlikely to succeed. That’s just political talk and nothing more.
The only avenue for a legal challenge will revolve around whether weekly covid testing is necessary for worker safety. That’s the way to attack it but it’s still a tough battle because OSHA has been granted the authority to decide what’s necessary to keep workers safe and despite what some think we are still in a pandemic and people are still getting sick at work every day and some do eventually die.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
We will see...
Virtual Toad
Well-Known Member
On states’ rights... a previous poster rightfully pointed out that the federal government used highway funding as a tool to raise the national drinking age to 21. Federal action dictating policy in the interest of public safety.
During previous wars, men were drafted by the federal government nationwide to serve in the armed forces. Again, federal action over state’s rights in the interest of the entire nation fighting a common enemy.
We’re engaged in a war against a dangerous virus now, a virus that could care less about state borders. How is it not within the federal government’s rights to enact nationwide policies this time around? Only because some people don’t like it? Not choosing a side, just pondering the question.
During previous wars, men were drafted by the federal government nationwide to serve in the armed forces. Again, federal action over state’s rights in the interest of the entire nation fighting a common enemy.
We’re engaged in a war against a dangerous virus now, a virus that could care less about state borders. How is it not within the federal government’s rights to enact nationwide policies this time around? Only because some people don’t like it? Not choosing a side, just pondering the question.
I've noticed over the years when states and their leaders don't like direction they go to that rallying cry " state rights " .
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
But isn’t the bad intent here to get “medical researchers” vaccinated? And aren’t they a protected class as sovereign individuals?
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I imagine it depends on the policy and whether or not it is deemed to be within their limits of power. Courts will decide in this particular case. Again, we will see...lol
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I mean, it is imbedded within the Constitution so yeah. We are a republic so states rights continuously come into play. Sometimes the feds win, sometimes the states win.
I really hope the feds win in that they are looking out for the whole country in this pandemic whereas the states rightly so are only concerned with their state residents. Whatever the decision this could spell a lot in the future employment of some.
bpiper
Well-Known Member
Since this will be an agency rule/regulation, it's going to take time. Numerous rules in the previous administration were struck down by the courts when the agency bypassed the process, NOT on the merits of the rule. Most people never got that. I used to work for the Federal Government, process is EVERYTHING.
Most of those rules were tossed on the third step below. They couldn't document a case on why the rule needed to be place in the first place so it seemed arbitrary.
Secondly, an agency is required to provide a meaningful opportunity for comments.[iii] However, the public do not possess any opportunity to comment on every bit of information that influences the decision of an agency.[iv] It is to be noted that, to give everyone a chance of hearing in rulemaking is highly impractical. In rulemaking, a trial form of hearing is not required.[v]
Third step is the adoption of new rule. A new rule promulgated by an administrative agency must contain adequate statement of the basis and purpose of the rule. Under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, a rule can be made invalidated by a reviewing court if an agency fails to explain the rule satisfactorily. The statement must prove that the rules are based on the relevant factors, and not arbitrary.
The final stage is the publication of new rule. Legislative rules must to be published in the Federal Register as per the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. It is the duty of the government to inform the public by publishing the matters that can adversely affect a member of the public.[vi] Generally, the publication of a legislative rule must be made thirty days prior to its effective date in order to assist affected persons by giving them enough time to prepare for the effects of the rule.
Most of those rules were tossed on the third step below. They couldn't document a case on why the rule needed to be place in the first place so it seemed arbitrary.
Federal Procedure for Adoption of Rules
According to the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, the rules promulgated by administrative agencies must undergo certain procedures. There are certain criteria/steps to be followed by an administrative agency before the adoption of rules. They are:- Notice;
- Comment and hearing;
- Adoption of new rule;
- Publication of new rule.
Secondly, an agency is required to provide a meaningful opportunity for comments.[iii] However, the public do not possess any opportunity to comment on every bit of information that influences the decision of an agency.[iv] It is to be noted that, to give everyone a chance of hearing in rulemaking is highly impractical. In rulemaking, a trial form of hearing is not required.[v]
Third step is the adoption of new rule. A new rule promulgated by an administrative agency must contain adequate statement of the basis and purpose of the rule. Under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, a rule can be made invalidated by a reviewing court if an agency fails to explain the rule satisfactorily. The statement must prove that the rules are based on the relevant factors, and not arbitrary.
The final stage is the publication of new rule. Legislative rules must to be published in the Federal Register as per the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. It is the duty of the government to inform the public by publishing the matters that can adversely affect a member of the public.[vi] Generally, the publication of a legislative rule must be made thirty days prior to its effective date in order to assist affected persons by giving them enough time to prepare for the effects of the rule.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I really hope the judges follow the law and Constitution. It shouldn't matter that I like the idea of the policy.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
In this case, imo, the feds have the better intent of public health in mind. But to act like every call of state sovereignty/rights is a rebel rally cry is disingenuous. That’s why other posters are attempting to delineate the two without bringing up the ghosts of 1861. As our nation is assembled, it is very much a valid distinction - pandemic response aside.
- Status