More On The Missing Biden EO And The Missing Vaccine Mandate

Yesterday, I wrote that there is no Biden Executive Order mandating the vaccine for all companies with more than 100 employees.

Several readers have mistakenly pointed to the EO that mandates the COVID vaccine for federal employees, federal contractors, and (now) sub-contractors. That’s NOT the EO I’m talking about.

Now I’ve learned that, apparently, Biden (his handlers) are pursuing a different strategy to mandate the vaccine for all employees of companies whose work force is more than 100.

Biden has issued a directive to the federal agency, OSHA, ordering it to frame a set of regulations that would, indeed, compel private sector companies with more than 100 employees to mandate the vaccine to those employees.

This Biden directive is operating under what’s called an ETS—Emergency Temporary Standard.

ONE: Since OSHA has not yet issued any regulations, there is no binding legal reason, at the moment, for private-sector employers with more than 100 employees to mandate the vaccine to those employees. Unless those employers are federal contractors.

TWO: As I suggested yesterday, this whole operation smells like a stall on the part of the feds. The stall is already occurring, since OSHA hasn’t issued any regulations, and it will continue after OSHA acts, as various state governments and other parties file legal actions against the government.

Meanwhile, on the ground, companies are folding up and following Biden’s “decree.” They’re falling in line. This fait accompli is exactly what the White House wants.

Legal challenges to the OSHA ETS could take months, even years. If enough companies voluntarily go along with the decree, the feds will win.

The feds aren’t looking for 100% compliance. The mechanics of enforcement alone could be a logistical nightmare. The feds just want MORE. More compliance. More employers ordering their people to take the shot. More needles in arms. More fascism. More tyranny. More power. More control.

THREE: It seems to me that not issuing an EO, and instead going the OSHA ETS route, is less direct, more muddy, and easier to wrangle about in court for a longer period of time. Which is what the feds want.

Meanwhile, back in the every-day world…back under the rule of the medical cartel…the beat goes on. And what is that beat?

For the past 30-plus years, I’ve been revealing, chapter and verse, the devastating effects of pharmaceutical medicine. The huge numbers of deaths, the huge numbers of maimings.

The overall result of this program is the massive debilitation of the population.

In other words, the gross weakening of health and vitality, which translates into the lowered ability to resist the power of the State.

This is fact. This is outcome. This is what, under the surface of society, has been happening for decades and decades.

And now, in the US alone, reported COVID vaccine injuries have surpassed 700,000. This figure is patently false, meaning it represents underreporting. For example, the well-known Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study concluded that reported vaccine injuries should be multiplied by 100 to arrive at a true number.

It’s long past the time when any doctor, nurse, or public health official can claim they’re unaware of the destruction pharmaceutical medicine is causing. They WANT TO be “unaware.” They WANT TO turn a blind eye. They WANT TO keep their jobs, paychecks, reputations, and status.

So, with that, I’ve republished my piece citing mainstream revelations that detail the amount of human devastation the medical cartel has been creating, for a long time. Consider the possibility that, for the moment, I’m the New York Times which has inexplicably received a heavy shot of Truth Serum.

This guy still doesn't get it. "[I]ssuing an EO" never was an option for the Biden administration with respect to private employers. The "OSHA ETS route" is itself problematic, since any such rule will have to be grounded in authority previously granted by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and it is hardly clear that the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate the sort of rule that Biden is looking for.

That the Biden administration is currently stalling on the OSHA ETS, however, is something that does seem likely. Absent agency action, there's nothing that can be challenged in court.

The reason they're doing the employer mandate via OSHA rather than via Executive Order isn't strategic. It's that you can't mandate private employer action via Executive Order period. Executive Orders are orders issued to personnel within the executive branch. Private employer aren't part of the government, so EO's cannot apply to them.

I do agree that it is mostly a bluff -- that they are trying to gain private employer compliance simply by threatening an OSHA mandate. The problem with actually issue such an order is that OSHA would be hit with legal challenges immediately, likely lose at least one case, and be faced with a national injunction against the policy almost immediately. That's the kind of publicity they wouldn't want, which is likely why OSHA doesn't seem to be in any rush to issue that regulation.

DSH wrote:

“
“THREE: It seems to me that not issuing an EO, and instead going the OSHA ETS route, is less direct, more muddy, and easier to wrangle about in court for a longer period of time. Which is what the feds want.
“

This guy still doesn’t get it. “[I]ssuing an EO” never was an option for the Biden administration with respect to private employers. The “OSHA ETS route” is itself problematic, since any such rule will have to be grounded in authority previously granted by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and it is hardly clear that the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate the sort of rule that Biden is looking for.

That the Biden administration is currently stalling on the OSHA ETS, however, is something that does seem likely. Absent agency action, there’s nothing that can be challenged in court.”
SH wrote:

Is there a reason that there can’t be a challenge to companies’ actions, due to there being an -absence- of any OSHA rule?

If the OSHA regulations are available, can’t the whole ‘book’ be used as proof that there is -no- rule in there justifying the actions of the companies with 100 or more employees?

Global socialist “ownership” of American “livestock” is so complete, we obey the very words of the fraudulently installed dimentia puppet.

DHS, DOJ-FBI, HHS, etc... do not need or use law, or science, or proof of violated laws either, to carry out thuggery, persecution, solitary confinement, confiscation/elimination of rights and property, or even death.

In fact, all government agencies, including state and local police in most cases, celebrate and live to violate actual supreme laws of the land.

Especially when the myriad law enforcement violations committed by federal and state judiciaries, and fed agencies provide the unlawful, immoral, and treasonous cover.

All they need is perceived knowledge one of their livestock isn’t in thought or word, willing to be slaughtered, or isn’t okay with their wife and children being slaughtered, or is not okay with their wife or children being morally perverted property of the state, or unwillimg to hand over their children to satan - the no longer hidden God of government.

This is where we are.

"Biden has issued a directive to the federal agency, OSHA [??? emphasis added], [...]"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding Biden's teleprompter leading from the rear through so-called OSHA, please consider the following.

Patriots are reminded that not only does the Constitution give elected members of Congress full responsibility for all federal government legislative /regulatory decisions, not non-elected bureaucrats running politically correct, so-called "independent federal regulatory agencies," but also that all nearly all decisions that federal bureaucrats make are based on stolen state powers, not constitutionally enumerated federal powers.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

In other words, lawless, post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers arguably established so-called "federal regulatory agencies" so that they could hide behind these agencies, letting non-elected bureaucrats do their unpopular, unconstitutional dirty work for them, so that career lawmakers can keep their voting records clean and get reelected.

The bottom line is that federal regulatory agencies are deliberate smoke-and-mirrors that effectively nullify the constitutionally enumerated voting protections of citizens imo.

The remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic-pirated federal government that is oppressing everybody under its boots...

Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.

Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.

Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments, but also an amendment to clean up the judiciary.

Corrections, insights welcome.

Is there a reason that there can’t be a challenge to companies’ actions, due to there being an -absence- of any OSHA rule?

If a private employer wants to issue a vaccine mandate in the absence of any OSHA regulation, they're free to do so. There may be various different grounds on which such a mandate could be challenged by those with standing (e.g., affected employees), but not on account of there not (yet) being any OSHA regulation.

If the OSHA regulations are available, can’t the whole ‘book’ be used as proof that there is -no- rule in there justifying the actions of the companies with 100 or more employees?

I'm not sure I quite understand this question, but if/when the OSHA ETS is promulgated, it will be amenable to challenge on the grounds that (among other things), the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not authorize OSHA to adopt a rule that imposes whatever specific requirements the rule might impose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Winning the War Against Therapeutic Nihilism & Trusted Treatments vs Untested Novel Therapies