By Mike Maharrey
Article Source

A bill filed in the Alaska House for the 2022 legislative session would ban state and local enforcement of a federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate, an important first step to nullify it in practice and effect.

Rep. David Eastman (R) introduced House Bill 262 (HB262) on Jan. 7. The legislation would ban the use of any state or municipal agency asset to implement or aid in the implementation of any presidential order, a federal regulation, or a law enacted by Congress that mandates a person be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The bill would also prohibit state enforcement of any presidential executive order, federal regulation, or federal law that “infringes on a person’s right to move freely in the state.”

In effect, the passage of HB262 would prohibit any state enforcement of such a federal coronavirus vaccine mandate or vaccine passport.

VACCINE MANDATE ENFORCEMENT IN PRACTICE

The 490-page federal vaccine regulation requires every person employed by businesses with 100 or more workers to be vaccinated or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. According to CBS News, that includes 84 million employees. The mandate also covers all federal workers and contractors. Companies that fail to comply will face fines of nearly $14,000 per “serious” violation. OSHA will serve as the primary federal enforcement agency for the mandate.

But OSHA has an Achilles heel, a serious lack of enforcement capability.

OSHA only employs 774 inspectors for the entire country. Approximately 1,200 more work for the states but enforce OSHA rules. That small force of inspectors must cover more than 7 million businesses. Currently, it would take them 160 years to inspect every business under its jurisdiction just one time. That’s why the feds will have to rely on snitches to have any hope of enforcing the vaccine mandate.

“There is no army of OSHA inspectors that is going to be knocking on employers’ doors or even calling them,” a former OSHA chief of staff told CBS News “They’re going to rely on workers and their union representatives to file complaints where the company is totally flouting the law.”

OSHA will also rely heavily on state cooperation to enforce the mandate. Stating that it’s a “team effort.”

Implementation and enforcement of OSHA regulations can be done on either a state or a federal level. Alaska is one of 22 states that enforce OSHA regulations through a federally approved state plan. This is similar to the state-run exchanges for Obamacare. There are no federal OSHA inspectors in Alaska. With the state serving as the OSHA enforcement arm in Alaska, withdrawal of state enforcement would put the feds in a tight spot.

The state plan stipulates that OSHA will step in and enforce federal rules if the state can’t (or won’t) enforce them. Even if the feds dis step in, they would still need state cooperation and assistance to effectively enforce a vaccine mandate.

Here’s the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know — partnerships and “team efforts” don’t work when half the team quits.

If employees refuse to tell on their coworkers and employers, and if states refuse to help enforce the vaccine mandates, the vaccine mandates won’t be enforced.

End of story.

State action can set the stage to nullify the vaccine mandate in practice and effect.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” is an extremely effective method to hinder the enforcement of any federal action because most enforcement relies on help, support and leadership from the states. This is true of virtually every federal law, and it will clearly be the case with the vaccine mandates.

Human action is also key. States can ban enforcement help all they want, but if everyone still complies, there’s nothing to enforce. In order to nullify the mandate, people must reject and resist it first and foremost.

LEGAL BASIS

The state of Alaska can refuse to use state personnel or resources for the enforcement of any federal act whether constitutional or not.

Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.

If Alaska doesn’t want to enforce vaccine mandates, it doesn’t have to — no matter what a federal court says about the constitutionality of such mandates.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB262 will be officially introduced when the legislative session begins on Jan. 19. At that time, it will be referred to a committee. It must receive a hearing and pass committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Shares
Share This