(Shelby ignored one of them.) There are laws that Biden’s actions fall under. Nobody did “whatever seems appropriate”, but, regardless, presidential authority is a malleable concept that is often employed on national security grounds, so there’s no consistent principle here.
-
-
Article II explicitly makes the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. As Robert Jackson noted, that does not make him commander-in-chief of the country.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, and the facts here are very different than Youngstown Steel. As is the authority Biden is operating under.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank and
So: do you a president has the legal right to mandate proof of vaccines fior interstate air and rail travel?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes. Federal power over interstate travel is one of the reasons why I parted company with DeSantis on the specific issue of vaccine passports for cruise ships.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Ok. My speculation is that Biden and his aides feared recurrent violent episodes at airports, but that would have been unquestionably w/in his power and I wish he had done. Further: do you object to all prongs of Biden’s announced policy, eg, health care facilities, fed workers?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I was inclined to support the mandate for health care workers. But someone pointed out to me that if concern is overwhelmed hospitals doing something that could cause healthcare workers to quit could be counter productive. So not sure.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I've also not yet seen a compelling scientific examination of the difference between the immunity conferred by vaccination & the immunity conferred by a previous COVID infection, which is a major reason some people refuse the vaccine. (Open to persuasion on that point.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What I've seen is that while both the vaccines and prior COVID infection provide good immunity, prior infection immunity is stronger (the downside is that you have to get COVID).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, there’s one study that indicated that. Don’t think that is yet the consensus, although there is agreement that prior infection and vaccination together offers the most immunity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The OSHA legal question is whether vaccination offers a provably significant enough improvement in immunity and/or contagiousness over prior infection that it presents a grave risk to vaccinated people to work with people who only have natural immunity from prior infection.
-
-
Like seatbelts, vaccines reduce, but don’t eliminate risk. So “significant” is the operative word here. But again, the choice for the 100+ workers category is to have regular testing.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
These vaccines seem so good that I don't think protecting the vaccinated is a good justification (particularly sense we are talking about working age people).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.