Lawmakers line up to urge Supreme Court to toss out Biden’s unconstitutional COVID-19 vaccine mandate | 立法者排隊敦促最高法院放棄拜登違憲的 COVID-19 疫苗授權

It  is all about one class controlling the other.  Those who push the vaccination do not care about your life.  When you die, they would just say “sorry, life moves on.”  or say nothing.  When they know that the vaccine injure and kill people, they pretend that they do not know anything.  The vaccine mandate does not make sense.  They just want to mess up your body and your life with a medical product that has been known to kill and injure people all over the world.  Why they should have a right over your body?  They want you to be their slaves!

這一切都是關於一個類控制另一個類。 那些推動接種疫苗的人並不關心你的生活。 當你死後,他們只會說”對不起,生活還在繼續。 或者什麼都不說。 當他們知道疫苗會傷害和殺死人時,他們假裝他們什麼都不知道。 疫苗授權沒有意義。 他們只是想用一種眾所周知會殺死和傷害全世界人的醫療產品來搞砸你的身體和生活。 為什麼他們應該對你的身體有權利? 他們希望你成為他們的奴


Bypass censorship by sharing this link:
Image: Lawmakers line up to urge Supreme Court to toss out Biden’s unconstitutional COVID-19 vaccine mandate

(Natural News) Dozens of lawmakers have signed onto an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to toss out Joe Biden’s unconstitutional COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal workers, contractors and many private businesses.

As reported by LifeSite News, 183 lawmakers have signed the “friend of the court” brief urging the justices to toss the mandates, which were issued through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in November.

“[OSHA] was never meant to be the health police,” the lawmakers wrote, according to the outlet. “Moreover, mandatory vaccinations do not stop individuals from contracting and transmitting COVID-19.

“Vaccinated workers can still contract and transmit COVID-19, including the new Omicron variant. Given that fact, imposing masking and testing restrictions only on unvaccinated workers makes no sense because all workers regardless of vaccination status remain potential carriers and transmitters of the virus,” the lawmakers added.

The letter came ahead of oral arguments before the high court this week in a case brought by Ohio and the National Federation of Small Businesses, both of which are suing over OSHA’s mandate for companies with 100 or more employees requiring workers to either be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.

In addition, the justices heard arguments in a case pushing back on the federal mandate for healthcare workers who work at facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

“Congressional members have an interest in the powers they delegate to agencies not being abused,” the lawmakers noted in the brief. “The legislative authority vested in the federal government belongs to Congress, not the Executive branch. In this case, the promulgation by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) of a sweeping, nationwide vaccine mandate on businesses intrudes into an area of legislative concern far beyond the authority of the agency.”

Brighteon.TVThe letter also cites the Biden regime for exploiting OSHA’s seldom-used “emergency temporary standard” provision to issue the mandates, saying it falsely creates a guise of legality and adding that OSHA has never had such authority and none has been delegated to the agency, implicitly or explicitly, by the Legislative Branch.

“In short, there is no mouse hole in which Congress could have even tried to hide the elephant of the ETS mandate here,” they wrote.

In addition, the lawmakers said that there are serious, legitimate concerns with the efficacy of the various vaccines, but that even if they were more reliable and effective, mandates and such have historically rested with states, not the federal government, and certainly not the Executive Branch.

“Without clear congressional authority in the regulatory scheme for such an expansion of agency authority into the realm of state police powers, it may not be assumed to exist,” they wrote.

“Moreover, the sudden ‘discovery’ of authority under the OSHA Act confirms that it was never intended to displace state authority in this area,” the lawmakers added.

During oral arguments this week, two of the court’s liberals made some false assumptions regarding the virus and vaccines, as The Federalist reported:

Justice Elena Kagan suggested that getting the vaccine reduces the spread of COVID-19, a dubious claim that’s contested by the rapidly rising number of breakthrough cases worldwide. Kagan’s opinion is that “this is the policy that is most geared to stopping all this.”

“There’s nothing else that will perform that function better than incentivizing people strongly to vaccinate themselves. So, you know, whatever necessary means, whatever grave means, why isn’t this necessary and grave?” she asked.

“We do not contest that COVID is a grave danger,” National Federation of Independent Business attorney Scott Keller responded. “But when the power for it to be necessary… an agency has to consider and explain alternatives.”

Justice Stephen Breyer also appeared to suggest that being vaccinated would stop the spread of the virus, claiming the argument that more people would leave the workforce due to the mandates was invalid because “more may quit when they discover they have to work together with unvaccinated others because that means they may get the disease.”

Sotomayor also falsely claimed that “hospitals are almost all full capacity,” adding that more than 100,000 children are hospitalized with COVID and on ventilators.

“The current national pediatric COVID census per HHS is 3,342. Many/most incidental,” American Commitment chair Phil Kerpen noted in response.

Sources include:

$$$ 如果你愿意,你可以在这捐款支持我们。谢谢。$$$
$$$ If you would, you can make a donation here to support us. Thank you. $$$


No Responses

Write a response

one × five =