COVID-19 loves evangelicals, Republicans, and anti-vaccine fools, I mean folks.
COVID-19 loves evangelicals, Republicans, and anti-vaccine fools, I mean folks.
chuck,
With all kindness, if you don't know what the topic is please go post where you know what's being discussed.
dneal (November 19th, 2021)
No, they don't. You're summarizing in hyperbole. From your very first post you are exaggerating. It's not "ignoring the rule of law" to use legal practice and delays to your advantage. It's not failure to uphold the Constitution. It's not failure to abide by the Presidential Oath of Office. It is not impeachable, or whatever. It is none of these exaggerations.
This is like saying that delaying a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee is a violation of the Constitution (some people claim this). It is not.
dneal (November 19th, 2021)
It's not for lack of trying.
"The Plaintiff States also argue that CMS’s rationale is flagrantly pretextual. The
Government Defendants say it is not pretextual, but it is obvious that the mandate was enacted as
a result of President Biden’s September 9, 2021, declaration of his intention to impose a national
CMS Mandate.33 Both the CMS and OSHA vaccine mandates were published on the same day,
November 5, 2021. However, the 46-page CMS Mandate does not even mention President
Biden’s declaration of a national vaccine mandate. The presence of pretext is enough to render a
rule arbitrary and capricious." [emphasis added]
***
"If the separation of powers meant anything to the Constitutional framers, it meant that the
three necessary ingredients to deprive a person of liberty or property – the power to make rules,
to enforce them, and to judge their violations – could never fall into the same hands. If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to
make laws, two of the three powers conferred by the Constitution would be in the same hands.
If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when
governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.
During a pandemic such as this one, it is even more important to safeguard the separation
of powers set forth in our Constitution to avoid erosion of our liberties." [citations deleted]
Louisiana vs Becerra, et al, USDC Western District of Louisiana
The first excerpt addresses the autocratic imposition of a mandate, while the second demonstrates that the attempt was made contrary to the Constitutional concept of separation of powers.
Interestingly, Dr. Jay Bhattachary is cited in the decision as well.
Kaz, what’s the message you hoped to convey?
Just what I said:
"The first excerpt addresses the autocratic imposition of a mandate, while the second demonstrates that the attempt was made contrary to the Constitutional concept of separation of powers."
I’ll put forward the same question as I posed, to which he ignored, to @dneal, what you do?
Bookmarks