Did the S.C. majority opinion in Biden v. Missouri ignore the rule of law?

.
In Biden v. Missouri, the Majority opinion never established the constitutionality of an agency, unelected by the people __ the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ___ to adopt a rule demanding and enforcing medical facilities nationwide to order their employees, volunteers, contractors, and other workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine. And, that such employers must fire noncompliant workers or risk fines and termination of their Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.

So, just what are the constitutional issues raised by the CMS vaccine mandate which have not been addressed in the Majority’s opinion?

The first question raised is, by what authority does an unelected government agency (CMS) issue such a sweeping mandate, one which intrudes upon the people’s elected representative’s exclusive power to make law, and especially so when the people’s Representatives may not lawfully delegate its power to set standards, principles, or general public policy?

To allow this mandate to stand is to undermine our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected Representatives, and only our elected Representatives, are entrusted to make law.

Considering the fact that the mandate issued by CMC involves such an extronarary set of circumstances, and, in the words of Justice Thomas, “. . . compels millions of healthcare workers to undergo an unwanted medical procedure that “cannot be removed at the end of the shift … ” it seems only too clear that to be within our Constitution’s framework that Congress, the people’s elected Representatives, and only the people’s elected Representatives, are constitutionally authorized to address this unique set of circumstances.

Neither the President, nor Congress may lawfully do indirectly, that which our Constitution forbids directly.

The second question raised is, does the mandate issued by an unelected government agency infringe upon a fundamental right of healthcare workers?

In Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."

And when a person’s liberty is infringed upon by a government act, we have been rightfully informed by our Supreme Court that a government-imposed act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

And, finally The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional., Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618

So, the answer the second question is a resounding yes! The mandate issued by an unelected government agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, infringes upon a fundamental right of healthcare workers.

And what is the proper course of action? It is the Supreme Court’s duty, by a Majority Opinion, and to be within the four corners of our Constitution to:

1. declare the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services does not have authority to issue such and extraordinary and sweeping mandate

2. make it abundantly clear that whenever a fundamental right hangs in the balance with respect to the use of government force, such as the fundamental rights of our nation’s healthcare workers, the Supreme Court is obligated to apply the protection of Strict Scrutiny to such force.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

See:Supreme Court's Ruling On Vaccine Mandates Is Frighteningly Weak

"The real tragedy came, however, in the companion case of Biden v. Missouri. That case was argued the same day, but with the Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 13 that the Department of Health and Human Service’s vaccine mandate for medical facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding could go into effect....

Justice Alito continued, noting, “today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators.”...

Unfortunately, we were amply warned about keeping our republic.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.


JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

.
See: U.S. judge blocks Biden vaccine mandate for federal workers in latest blow to White House Covid agenda

.
JAN 21 2022
.
"Judge Jeffrey Brown, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in a 20-page order that Biden’s executive order “amounts to a presidential mandate that all federal employees consent to vaccination against COVID-19 or lose their jobs.”

“Because the President’s authority is not that broad, the court will enjoin the second order’s enforcement,” read Brown’s ruling in U.S. District Court in Galveston, Texas."

BTW, here is a LINK to the 20-page order putting a hold on Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal workers, part of which reads:

"As noted above, the Fifth Circuit has already determined that the Hobson’s choice employees face between “their job(s) and their jab(s)” amounts to irreparable harm. OSHA, 17 F.4th at 618. Regardless of what the conventional wisdom may be concerning vaccination, no legal remedy adequately protects the liberty interests of employees who must choose between violating a mandate of doubtful validity or consenting to an unwanted medical procedure that cannot be undone. The Fifth Circuit has also held that the reputational injury and lost wages employees experience when they lose their jobs “do not necessarily constitute irreparable harm.” Burgess v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 871 F.3d 297, 304 (5th Cir. 2017). But when an unlawful order bars those employees from significant employment opportunities in their chosen profession, the harm becomes irreparable. Id"

The bottom line is, it would be an absurdity to believe that our founders, and those who ratified our Constitution, vested a power in Congress to delegate powers which it may not rightfully exercise itself.

JWK

“We often give enemies the means of our own destruction.” -- Aesop. Witness the dangerous stranglehold the Chinese Communist Party now exercises over the production of our nation’s necessities

.
The Court asserted the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority delegated under legislation passed by Congress to require healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding, to be vaccinated.


The question of Congress' authority to actually delegate such authority was not addressed by the Court, nor did the court address the question of these healthcare workers' fundamental rights being infringed upon by the mandate.


Here is a LINK to the 20-page order putting a hold on Biden’s vaccine mandate for the healthcare workers involved. It is well worth studying!


JWK

It would be an absolute absurdity to believe that our founders, and those who ratified our Constitution, vested a power in Congress to delegate powers which it may not rightfully exercise itself.