Doesn’t that depend on “pre-emption” or some such legal circumstance?
In any event, what Biden/Harris is proposing isn’t legal anyway is it?
The starting point here is the so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, which states in pertinent part: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Emergency Temporary Standard that OSHA is said to now be developing will presumably be relying on a provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 as providing it the federal statutory authority for imposition of the employer vaccine mandate. At issue in any court challenge, if and when the ETS is issued, would be, basically, whether the ETS is authorized under the OSH Act.
If the ETS were to be found to be within OSHA's authority to adopt, then, yes, the requirements it imposes would supersede any contrary action taken by the Texas governor (or, for that matter, the Texas legislature). In short (and this is somewhat roughly put), when there is a federal law, that federal law trumps a contrary state law, per the Supremacy Clause.
First you have to show an emergency.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/655
Well based on this there is going to be a whole lot of wrangling before this rule can even be mandated
From your link:
(c)Emergency temporary standards
(1)The Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, for an emergency temporary standard
to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.
= = = =
Since this is an OSHA regulation, it applies to the workplace. So let's consider people of working age (15-64):
According to the CDC,
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data
as of 10/6/2021, for the time period 01/01/2020 to 10/02/2021,
Age Range COVID DEATHS
15-24 years. 1,542
25-34 years. 6,712
35-44 years. 16,911
45-54 years. 42,626
55-64 years. 96,649
total deaths age 15-64 years: 164,440
That's over 21 months for the whole country.
Or 7830 / month
or 261 / day.
There are
10.69+11.03+11.88+11.57+10.94+10.11+9.87+10.05+10.51+9.98
106.63 million
males
and 10.27+10.56+11.36+11.27+10.89+10.2+10.1+10.34+11.09+10.82
106.9 million
females
or 213.5 million
or (261/213,500,000)x100=0.000122% fatality rate per day among working age people.
About 1/8000th of 1% per day fatality rate.
Did they ALL catch it at work?
How does this justify jabbing everyone at work or firing them, even those working from home?
...smallpox (in the Jacobson case in Massachusetts in 1905) involved a 30% fatality rate, and a vaccine which had been in use for years.
No forcing into that vax, or losing your job, either.
Just a $5 fine (around $165 today, or a large speeding ticket).
What do you say ? Mandatory untested clot-shot making Moderna and Pfizer tens of billions of $$$ each?
For what Moderna admitted in their July 2020 Wall Street filing, was an experimental gene therapy?
All numbers lightly rounded, population figures from https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/
...but it's worse than that. You have to subtract out of the total dead, those who died after the clot shot: because the risk for someone dying from COVID without a jab, shouldn't include deaths of those who WERE jabbed.
And it's worse than that: top-tier medical sources show:
Deaths increase after the jab
There is no link between jab rates and infection rates People with the jab are dying from COVID more than the unjabbed.
(See below).
Johns Hopkins showing time series graphs for deaths from COVID before/after the jabs.
Deaths skyrocket across the board AFTER the jabs.
Harvard study showing no correlation between jab rates and infection rates across 67 Countries, and across over 2900 US counties https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
New England Journal of Medicine Article showing antibodies from jabs drop off around 3 months https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114583
And from the Market Ticker
Ticker Guy analysis of the Uk Report:
NEGATIVE EFFICIENCY CHART
Unfortunately what this means is that now for anyone over 30 you are more likely to get infected, yes, adjusted for the population that is vaccinated, if you are vaccinated. Indeed in the 40-49 age group you’re close to double as probable on a per-population basis.
This means that if your employer mandates the jabs he or she can be sued for putting those who can’t get vaccinated at double the risk, on purpose, by enforcing the mandate.
Since there are people who can’t (due to immune compromise, such as cancer patients) be vaccinated this is now intentional risk.
In other words this is hard, scientific evidence that these mandates by employers have increased the risk of customers (and other employees) contracting Covid-19. This isn’t a natural risk (which an employer is not responsible for) it’s a man-made one created by the employer.
That’s actionable.
So far this is not translating into higher risk of Covid hospitalization and death on a per-100,000 basis. But that the vaccine makes you more likely to both get and give to others the virus is now established. It is fact. It is in fact true for everyone who is over 30.
I have pointed out that preventing infection was never in the cards; it was not part of the EUA, it was not part of the studies, it was never demonstrated. But this is much worse because now we are talking about a direct threat to others.
The CDC, NIH and Biden almost-certainly know this.
This is why the mad rush to demand you get jabbed; they know damn well what this means and that while the manufacturer is immune the employers are not and in fact any such mandate leaves them wide open legally as soon as an unvaccinated person gets infected after being at said firm either as an employee or customer and sues the company on the basis of intentionally and maliciously increasing their risk by forcing their employees to get the jab, which is exactly what they did.
The data from England is conclusive in that regard.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243859
...SNIP...
The report he is reviewing is linked below: UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report
Week 40
THERE IS NO MEDICAL EMERGENCY FOR THE JAB!
...not to mention Ivermectin.
And Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India, and (I think) Indonesia, are all using Ivermectin and stopping infection in its tracks.
Where in the USC is the Federal government given the power to create and require occupational health and safety standards (however defined) in all the States? I don't remember seeing anything close. We're talking about private exchanges of services for money, under conditions agreed to by the respective parties. Isn't that by definition a State or local matter, since the Federal government is not a party to any of it? Our Federal government is a union composed of States, not individual people or ants in thrall to it severally.
The insanity of Federal overbite is exactly what the Founders foresaw, and they prepared the Constitutional framework specifically to block it. It seems to me the only road away from Stalinism is restricting FedGov to exactly what is authorized in the USC by retaking legal and physical territory back from FedGov from all directions, until there's no way of catching all the marbles as they roll.
