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.
> 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?
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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_."
“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.
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."
Even though Congress already wrote a law that gave the agencies authority to do unprecedented actions?
What I'm not seeing is engagement with the actual text of the statutes that Congress already wrote and put on the books. For instance, the OSHA Act specifically gave OSHA power to regulate "new hazards".
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title29/html... "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."
Similarly the Social Security act already gave broad power to issue regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395hh# "such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs under this subchapter" "No rule, requirement, or other statement of policy (other than a national coverage determination) that establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing the scope of benefits, the payment for services, or the eligibility of individuals, entities, or organizations to furnish or receive services or benefits under this subchapter shall take effect unless it is promulgated by the Secretary by regulation under paragraph (1)."
the Act clearly envisions the secretary having authority to change standards for benefits, payment for services, and eligibility. There's no limitation saying that eligibility criteria can be based on other safety measures, but not vaccines.
Not really, for instance courts did examine the CDC eviction mandate and found it was overreaching the language of the law and voided it. I agree with that as the law provided examples of the power it was giving and the eviction mandate clearly didn’t fit with the others (fumigation, quarantine of positive cases, etc).
A mandate for vaccinating healthcare seems a lot closer to existing regulations that the law was designed to allow. It’s clearly a health and safety regulation just like the dozens of previous health regulations regulating quarantine, mask wearing, sanitation, safe handling of items, etc.
The reason congress doesn’t reserve this power is because in our system congress can’t react quickly or sometimes at all. It has to pass laws giving up this type of authority to the executive branch because it knows its own processes don’t work quickly or efficiently enough.
Congress did give itself instead the authority to veto regulations it doesn’t like, using the Congressional Review Act. It used to give itself even stronger authority using the one-house legislative veto, but the Supreme Court struck that down. < https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...>
