Editorial: Joe’s big mandate

Column By Mike Bibb

As much as President Joe thinks he’s some kind of emperor, he’s not quite there yet.  The Supreme Court may determine that assumption.

Standing in the way is a document called the United States Constitution.  It’s been around for several hundred years, much to Joe’s amazement.  Even though he took an oath to defend it when sworn into office, I’m not certain he’s ever browsed through its contents.

If he did, then he must know he doesn’t have the lawful authority to enact a law on his own.  That’s the job of Congress.  At the same time, it’s the job of the Supreme Court to hear and decide upon controversies and disputes arising from laws enacted by Congress and/or the president.

This is exactly what the Supreme Court is now doing with Joe’s vaccine mandates.

Joe represents the Executive Branch of government.  Congress is the Legislative Branch of government.  The Supreme Court is the Judicial Branch of government.  All three are supposed to work in unison and act as a “check and balance” to limit each other’s duties and responsibilities.  

In other words, make certain no individual or branch of government can acquire too much influence or power.

Unfortunately, some presidents tend to ignore or circumvent this basic premise and enact, by executive decree, pseudo-laws that may unlawfully affect large segments of society. 

President Joe has recently tried this approach with his COVID-19 vaccine orders, apparently forgetting one of his responsibilities is to enforce the law, not make law.

At issue is if Joe’s demands can be enforced through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require federal employees and private employers employing over a hundred workers, to receive the COVID vaccine inoculations as a condition of continued employment.

I guess employers with less than a hundred employees are not bothered by COVID.

Currently, the government and private sector are confused about what to do.  Some are requiring the shots while others are awaiting clarification of the order.  People are being terminated for refusing the vaccines; others are acquiescing to protect their jobs. 

Either way, Joe’s mandates more closely resemble coercion than cooperation.

On the surface, it appears Joe and his advisors are simply rolling the dice in hopes their vaccine commands will be bottled-up in the courts and they can continue to force their “no jab – no job” policy upon nearly everyone – whether they want, need or believe in the vaccines. 

In the meantime, there is little or limited discussion of alternative medicines, individual immunity, or other healthful approaches to deal with the viruses.  It’s strictly vaccines, vaccines, vaccines 24/7, almost to the point of being hyper-redundant.

I could be wrong, but it appears the never-ending push for vaccinations is probably more the result of Big Pharma’s influence than anything else.  Of course, mask manufacturers, virus test suppliers, and anyone else commercially associated with the pandemic are probably enjoying a profitable boost to their bottom lines.

There’s money in treating the viruses – lots of it.

Excepting all these extraneous situations, Joe’s mandates seem to rest on five premises:

I.  Does he have the lawful authority to compel the folks — by executive order and through an agency of government — to take a specific medicine against their will?  

II.  Can one government official, or agency, decide what is the proper and correct amount of medication every person must receive in order to remain employed?

III.  Is additional dosages and increased frequency of the vaccinations included in the mandate? 

IV.  Can inoculations be required forever, regardless of the fact they do not prohibit being infected or prevent spreading the disease?

V.  Are people not subject to OSHA regulations exempt from Joe’s mandates? 

The Supreme Court has a decision to make, but it’s generally accepted voluntary compliance is one thing, forced compliance is quite another.

Maybe the justices will simply rule – “If a person wants the shots, then get the shots.  If a person doesn’t want the shots, then don’t get the shots.  It’s an individual’s choice, but they shouldn’t be penalized for not getting shots.”  Or, they could punt the ball back to Congress, since it’s their responsibility to make laws involving society.

Not being a lawyer, but capable of reading English, I see the very first article in the Constitution plainly saying, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” 

It does not say a president has “legislative powers.”   If he did, we wouldn’t need a Congress or, probably, a Supreme Court.  It would be a “one-man rule.”  Which was one of the problems we fought a revolution over.

Joe might want to keep that thought in mind.  History has a remarkable tendency of repeating itself.  One time it might be the public’s refusal to pay a tax on tea.  Next, government public health workers forcing shots into people’s arms could make a bunch of people mad.

If anything, the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol protests demonstrated how quickly people can organize to complain about perceived government abuse, overreach, and misconduct.

As a suggestion, maybe Joe’s Administration would be better off if it left national health issues to those more competent in dealing with them than attempting to impose some kind of compulsory mandate that a large portion of the population is not in agreement with.  

Sealing our southern border would be a nice place for Joe to begin dealing with a problem that he actually has lawful authority to do.

The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.