Since this is the first week in October, which means the US Supreme Court is back in session, let’s look at President Biden’s and the Democrats view of the Constitution.
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya from the “Princess Bride”: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means,” when they say constitutionality.
During the pandemic Biden issued a national rent moratorium through a public health mandate from the Centers for Disease Control. The Supreme Court told the administration they had no right to do so.
Biden’s response was it may take years for it to work its way through the courts so I will push for it now.
The White House is now pushing for a national vaccination mandate for all companies with more than 100 employees.
Surely this is another broad overreach of the federal government into the private sector just like the rent moratorium. Perhaps Biden can mandate federal employees, but that would need to adjudicated as well.
As I wrote earlier this week, we need to define some terms on a scientific basis.
Let’s look at the science, with the number of breakthrough cases being reported by the feds, I do not believe the jab can still be called a vaccine. It is perhaps a somewhat effective therapeutic, much like other drugs that cannot be mention on social media.
If you call the jab a therapeutic, then you cannot mandate it, so the thinking goes.
Certainly it offers less immunity than having antibodies, according to a study out of Israel. However, antibodies from having CoVid are not even considered under the mandate. Don’t see how you can even use the phrase “follow the science” if you are not considering natural immunity.
It is conceivable that some members of the Biden administration never studied Constitutional Law.