In a nutshell!!!
However, what seems to me the crux of the legal position is: "Under the federal EUA statute, people are entitled to be informed about their right to accept OR REFUSE administration of these vaccines,"
If the law states "you have the right to refuse", what possible justification was there for POTUS to impose a mandate, th…
However, what seems to me the crux of the legal position is: "Under the federal EUA statute, people are entitled to be informed about their right to accept OR REFUSE administration of these vaccines,"
If the law states "you have the right to refuse", what possible justification was there for POTUS to impose a mandate, that entirely nullifies that right? Isn't that illegal? Can presidents be accused of acting illegally? The rationale was it was "an emergency" but
the grounds for claiming an "emergency" were very quickly revealed to be utterly spurious given the 98% survival rate, so why are people not attacking Biden with the same vehemence as Fauci? Fauci advised but Biden authorized?
In a nutshell!!!
However, what seems to me the crux of the legal position is: "Under the federal EUA statute, people are entitled to be informed about their right to accept OR REFUSE administration of these vaccines,"
If the law states "you have the right to refuse", what possible justification was there for POTUS to impose a mandate, that entirely nullifies that right? Isn't that illegal? Can presidents be accused of acting illegally? The rationale was it was "an emergency" but
the grounds for claiming an "emergency" were very quickly revealed to be utterly spurious given the 98% survival rate, so why are people not attacking Biden with the same vehemence as Fauci? Fauci advised but Biden authorized?