[teeray]

Sure, that’s the loophole. What’s happening here is yet another end-run around the democratic process. People are tired of emergency powers, executive orders, and delegated authority being used to enact some of the most impactful laws of our time. We want the Schoolhouse Rock version of law-making because we at least get something of a say in it.

[clukic]

Should Congress also pass laws regarding which vaccines are mandated for military personal serving in which areas of the world? For example, if the risk of yellow fever increases in Yemen, should Congress pass a law requiring special forces deployed in that area must acquire the vaccine? Or should that decision be left to the appointed heads of those branches of the military?

https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots

[redblacktree]

Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies. If congress wants that authority back, they can get it back via legislation. The responsibility for the current situation starts and stops with congress. The executive branch is doing what congress has asked it to do, and the executive branch would stop doing those things the moment that congress legislated the authority back to themselves.

[crazy1van]

> Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies

Yes, but at some point there must be a limit to how much power they can delegate. If Congress created a new Super-Congress that it granted all the powers of Congress, I would contend that would be unconstitutional. It clearly goes against the founding principles of having three branches of government. That would be akin to the government creating a fourth branch without amending the constitution.

Amending the constitution is a process that is clearly defined by the constitution. If that process isn't needed to create a fourth branch of government, a change that changes the core of the constitution, what would it ever be needed for and why would they have included it?

[redblacktree]

It would be up to the judicial branch to make those determinations. So far, they are broadly OK with the delegation that has happened.

[betwixthewires]

...except for the delegation of power to mandate vaccines apparently, which is the focus of this discussion.

If we are going to talk about what's the right answer from a position of "if the court says it that's how it goes" then I can assume you're happy with this court decision?

[redblacktree]

Yes, I'm happy with it from a "balance of power" perspective. I would like a different outcome, regarding vaccine mandates, but that responsibility lies with congress, and unfortunately one of our political parties is anti-science and anti-vaccine, which means it won't happen.

Still, I'm happy that we're not breaking the rules for the convenience of getting an outcome I'd like better.

[bingohbangoh]

Does the CDC have regulatory mandates to ensure vaccination? Does this extend to "get vaccinated or get fired?"

People very broadly give power to the CDC that I don't think they have.

[javagram]

Why are you mentioning the CDC?

Do you know that the two federal mandates were issued by CMS and by OSHA, two completely different organizations from the CDC?

BTW, the law as written gives very broad powers to OSHA and other agencies. This is controversial mainly because one political side in the country is anti vaccine right now.

[kansface]

Bodily autonomy is perhaps the central tenant of liberty. There is plenty of room to be for vaccines and against (federal) mandates.

[javagram]

Why reference federal mandates if your argument is bodily autonomy? That would equally apply to state and corporate mandates.

[kansface]

People have remedy of sorts in the case of a functioning local market. If some employer requires you to get vaccines and you aren't in to that, you can work somewhere else. If a state has requirements you don't like, you could potentially leave that state. Its different when its the federal government giving the mandate and it covers the entirety of your industry.

[bingohbangoh]

Ok, then CMS or OSHA.

My point still stands. Vaccine enforcement and mandates was not even considered as under their purview. It's quite hair-splitting to say "there's nothing that says they _can't start enforcing vaccine mandates_."

[javagram]

“Vaccine enforcement and mandates was not even considered as under their purview.”

Even if the law as written allowed it? Since the OSHA act and Social security acts that give OSHA and CMS regulatory authority passed, the USA has never faced a deadly virus pandemic that could be combated with a vaccine.

If Congress specifically wrote the law to allow flexibility for new situations it doesn’t make sense to me to argue that because the situation didn’t arise in the 20th century that the authority and law has lost its power.

[bingohbangoh]

Right, that's my point -- this is unprecedented and thus falls under "Congress needs to allow these agencies to do this" _not_ "these agencies can do this by default."