(09-10-2021 07:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 06:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 10:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-09-2021 09:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Care to share with us the legal basis for that? Or do you simply subscribe to the adage of 'The President can do when he/she wishes'?

You’re the lawyer, you tell me

Im not the one pushing that it isnt that difficult and everyone should get on board. I suggest that you tell me, good sir. Or just simply slough off answering it and we can surmise by implication.

The Commerce Clause, from my understanding. Something about public health, diseases, and those diseases going in between states.

Edit: even more explicitly:

Quote: The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264

Maybe this rule falls outside of these purviews?

I think the episode with the CDC eviction moratorium was fairly on point. With both your suggestions. It took SCOTUS less than 30 days to render that one.

And, at a first thought, I dont imagine that the Surgeon General enjoys plenary power under the Constitution as your section seems to denote.

-------------------------------

Edited to add:
Now, after looking at the cite, I dont think whomever is feeding you the source material is doing you a favor. The selective edit of the law is commendable in its effort, albeit highly misleading in the form you have put forward.

I suggest you actually read the entirety of the law and section as opposed to a one line snippet. A quick glance at that shows a whole host of powers explicitly enabled, none of which are the subject of the EO.

Second Edited to add:

The notes to the law actually denote the CDC eviction moratorium was promulgated under this section. Which corresponds to the case filings in the SCOTUS 30 day case. I am pretty confident that your offering is a dry hole.

Third edited to add:

In the campaign, Sundowner explicitly noted that the President does not have the ability to put into place a mask mandate --- a far less onerous restriction than that proposed. And implicating a far lesser set of rights than that with vaccines, etc. And, the case law supports that Sundowner statement. So magically, the opposite is true? And implicating a far deeper set of rights than a mask mandate?

Note that I think Happy Meal has the ability to do such with Federal workers and Federal contractors. But the requirement for enforcing this across a broad swath of the private sector is a stupid power grab. But, as seen with the CDC eviction moratorium (and Biden's explicit comment at the outset that *that* itself was improper), I dont think the half-wit gives a flying fk about the law, nor any restrictions on the powers of both government as a whole *and* the power of EO.

Given that *you* were the strongest 'yelper' in these forums over simply the *appearance* of an authoritarian wannabe in Trump (let alone the paucity of even close to authoritarian things he put out), I now note your silence on (and perhaps defense of) of both actual authoritarian power grabs, and actual explicit disdain for the limits of power. Imagine that.

Yes, someone is “feeding” me information.

Like Westside said, you’re the lawyer. Instead of arguing your point from the start, which you seem to clearly be capable of doing, you find it more fun to goad others into digging into something that is outside their realm. But if they don’t look up something, you cry and scream about it.

This cute strategy let’s you then use your expertise to puff your chest, spout off some more obnoxious and vitriolic posts, and use legalese to prove the point you were capable of proving from the start.

In short, you didn’t need me or Westside to throw some legal spaghetti against the wall - but you find this more fun. Unfortunately, I give in and play the game.