> Now the name of the game is usually to try to link federal laws regarding regulation to the interstate commerce clause.
Specifically it's permitting OSHA to insure workplace health measures. Is your argument that this is unconstitutional?
Specifically it's permitting OSHA to insure workplace health measures. Is your argument that this is unconstitutional?
Just the general category of workplace health measures is too broad and ill-defined to specify whether it is constitutional or not. Particularly when you start stuffing things like vaccine mandates -- something unprecedented for OSHA -- into the bucket of workplace safety -- which is what OSHA is about (not "health", but safety, and primarily safety from occupational accidents).
You would need to make a case that the measure ties reasonably to interstate commerce or some other enumerated power and that it does not include anything forbidden to the federal government. The above is the test you always apply to any law, as well as any attempt to "stretch" an application of existing law to a completely new use case.
Personally, I think trying to turn OSHA into a public health authority is a bit of a stretch, as historically this has been the job of states - the NIH issued guidelines but states were the ones who implemented stronger or weaker versions of these guidelines. This is why you have some states requiring masks, and others don't. Some states requiring vaccines and other's don't. So what we have here is a massive new Federalization done under the guise of OSHA, whereas the enabling OSHA legislation was not concerned with things like public health measures, but with workplace accidents.
This seems reasonable.
> Particularly when you start stuffing things like vaccine mandates -- something unprecedented for OSHA -- into the bucket of workplace safety
I agree it is an imperfect application and pushes past existing boundaries.
> You would need to make a case that the measure ties reasonably to interstate commerce or some other enumerated power
If limited to the scope of this EO, this is hopefully part of what the courts are going to consider.
> Personally, I think trying to turn OSHA into a public health authority is a bit of a stretch, as historically this has been the job of states.
On the former, I agree on principle. On the latter I am disinclined to appreciate that arrangement while it is routine for state officials to exercise corruption and party favoritism - because it is typically left to harmful state officials to perform their own oversight.
Are you saying you don't believe that to be the case for federal officials?
However the closer the gov, the more it directly it impacts me. My county is generally square with us and I've been happy with them. Conversely, my state leadership choices have resulted in years of real-life grief for us.
FWIW, county and state are dominated by the same party. My county mostly serves us while the state serves party+donors and that's about it.
In the EU this is a massive problem. For some countries the situation is better, but you provide a far larger attack surface for special interest with huge capital.