▲
3
0
▼

Why is Congress exempt from mandatory jabs while most workers are not?


 invite response                
2021 Sep 12, 4:48pm   448 views  6 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://notthebee.com/article/lucky-members-of-congress-are-exempt-from-bidens-nationwide-vaccine-mandate

Imagine that: Members of Congress are exempt from Biden's nationwide vaccine mandate ...

You may find Joe Biden's unilateral nationwide vaccine mandate a nuisance, a bother, a worry, a profound violation of your constitutional rights. But you know who doesn't? Members of Congress, none of whom have to follow it! ...

Or maybe it's because Joe Biden simply lacks the statutory or constitutional authority to issue a mandate that covers Congress. That sounds about right.

But then consider how odd it is: Joe Biden apparently cannot dictate the medical decisions of members of Congress, but he can do so for the tens of millions of Americans that elected them. Does that make much sense to you?

Comments 1 - 6 of 6        Search these comments

1   HeadSet   2021 Sep 12, 7:47pm  

If you are following the Constitution, a President's executive orders only apply to the Executive Branch. Although the President can order everyone in the Executive Branch to get the jab, he cannot order the jab for the population at large. Ironically, Biden specifically exempted the Executive Branch in his unconstitutional order.
2   Patrick   2021 Sep 12, 10:17pm  

Well, it would be embarrassing if some of the White House staff dropped dead from vaxx-induced blood clots, so I can see the reasoning there.
6   Patrick   2023 Nov 13, 1:36pm  

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/what-can-congress-do


What Can Congress Do?
And what can YOU do? Tell THEM what to do. Over and over. I wrote these.

MERYL NASS
NOV 13, 2023
1. The International Pandemic Preparedness Act, which was inserted in the 2023 NDAA and passed last December, pages 950-967, was probably not read by most members of Congress, who may not have known it was there. It directs the federal government to comply with the global biosecurity agenda, which presumably means the WHO's pandemic treaty and International Health Regulation (IHR) and its amendments. It directs the US government to support GAVI, a vaccine NGO formed by Bill Gates. There are many troubling aspects to this bill. Congress should ideally revoke it, but at a minimum perform oversight and report on how it is being implemented.

2. Revoke the 2005 PREP Act, which allows experimental products to be used on the entire population, potentially with no testing or minimal testing, and removes liability from the manufacturer, the government, those performing vaccinations and everyone involved. (This domestic law, which created the Emergency Use Authorization, is needed so the WHO can legally order untested drugs and vaccinations on the US population, as specified in the October 2023 pandemic treaty draft.)

3. Revoke all legislation passed in the wake of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that allowed Constitutional protections to be suspended for emergencies and funded misguided pandemic preparedness efforts. Project Bioshield, etc.)

4. Encourage the states to revoke the Model State Emergency Health Powers Acts and similar legislation that was authored by George Washington Professor Lawrence O. Gostin under a CDC contract, passed by the states, and which has allowed governors to rule by decree during designated emergencies.

5. Exit and defund the WHO--support HR-79.

6. Require Senate ratification of all treaties with the WHO and other UN agencies. The IHRs have been adopted in the US by "executive agreement." According to the Congressional Research Service, "an executive agreement is a type of treaty from an international law perspective..." yet it does not require Senate advice and consent. Congress should demand that the IHR Amendments, as well as the Pandemic Treaty, require Senate ratification. Simply because an earlier version of this treaty was signed by executive branch agreement, there is no reason that massive revisions of the treaty also should evade Senate scrutiny.

In fact, in Article 36 the treaty itself calls on state parties to ratify it.

This is particularly important in light of the WHO's plan to withhold the negotiated IHR Amendments from the public and all member states in January, as required by the IHR, and continue work on them until, potentially, they have been passed by the World Health Assembly in May. At which point, presumably, we will learn what our nations have signed up to after the fact.

7. The negotiations on the IHR amendments are being conducted in secret. A Swedish parliamentarian (Elsa Widding) has challenged Sweden's Health Minister to make the negotiations transparent or resign. Something like this could be demanded of the Biden administration.

8. Withhold all WHO funding in the foreign operations appropriations bill, as did the House in HR-4665.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions