Logo
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

A mandate for constitutional government

R. Albert Mohler Jr. | The Supreme Court blocks the Biden administration’s “workaround” to require vaccines


The U.S. Supreme Court Associated Press/Photo by Evan Vucci

A mandate for constitutional government
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism and commentary without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $3.99 per month.

LET'S GO

Already a member? Sign in.

In its important ruling yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court took no position on vaccines. The court’s majority offered no medical advice and acknowledged the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the nation’s highest court did block the Biden administration from moving forward with a mandate that required all employers with more than 100 employees to require that their employees be vaccinated or tested weekly.

In blocking this vaccine mandate, the court underlined the fact that the federal government cannot simply invent new powers for its agencies and then promulgate policies that turn private businesses into extensions of regulatory government.

Back in September, President Joe Biden announced he would instruct the U.S. Department of Labor to create a mandate for vaccinations that would cover two-thirds of all Americans in the workforce. The mandate would come as a rule produced by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. That policy was released by OSHA on Nov. 5 and included rules that required employers to maintain, and in some cases publicly post, medical information concerning their employees.

But OSHA was never given such authority by Congress, and administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, basically admitted that the OSHA policy was a “workaround.” In other words, the White House would seek to get by regulatory fiat—announced by the president of the United States, no less—that the Biden administration could never get through Congress. To admit the need for a workaround is to admit the absence of a legal or constitutional basis.

Furthermore, the OSHA policy provided no exemptions for religious employers and would require that a Christian institution invade the privacy and violate the consciences of Christian employees, some of whom have expressed religious objections to the vaccines. That is why The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the institution I serve as president, sued the Biden administration. The Biden administration’s workaround would violate religious liberty and conscience rights.

If OSHA gets away with promulgating a rule that violates religious conscience, what about the innumerable other policies that liberal politicians would want to mandate and require of Christian institutions?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court acted in defense of constitutional government. The court’s ruling was clear: “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.” The six conservative justices stood together in the ruling, even as the court’s three liberal justices dissented. The court’s ruling stated bluntly that Congress has given OSHA defined responsibilities related to occupational health, not extending to larger issues of public health. Citing precedent, the majority declared that the vaccine mandate is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” It was government overreach and a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s careful separation of powers.

As is so often the case, the importance of the court’s action is made even more clear by asking what would be the result of the court’s ruling otherwise. If a president can instruct his secretary of labor, without legal authority, to instruct a federal agency to mandate that employers require employees to be vaccinated, what could it not require?

And, if OSHA gets away with promulgating a rule that violates religious conscience, what about the innumerable other policies that liberal politicians would want to mandate and require of Christian institutions? If a federal agency can mandate vaccinations without respecting religious employers, what about LGBTQ policies or anything else that comes down the pike?

My concerns are not based in opposition to the vaccines. My mother was a nurse who had worked in pediatric wards and had seen firsthand the wonders of vaccines in saving children’s lives. I can assure you that she lined up her four children for vaccines with vigor. Thus far, I have received three COVID shots and I was glad to take them. As president of a large Christian institution, I have encouraged COVID vaccinations to faculty and students, both privately and in public.

But I have opposed any mandate from the start, and I deny the right of a federal agency to force me to line up our employees and separate the sheep from the goats based on vaccination status and to coerce employees against religious conscience to be vaccinated or be “outed.”

The Supreme Court’s stay against the Biden vaccine mandate yesterday noted that those who brought the suits “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.” I sure hope that is right


R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Albert Mohler is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Boyce College and editor of WORLD Opinions. He is also president of the Evangelical Theological Society and host of The Briefing and Thinking in Public. He is the author of several books, including The Gathering Storm: Secularism, Culture, and the Church. He is the seminary’s Centennial Professor of Christian Thought and a minister, having served as pastor and staff minister of several Southern Baptist churches.

COMMENT BELOW

Please wait while we load the latest comments...

Comments

Please register, subscribe, or login to comment on this article.


Salty1

I agree with Mr. Mohler’s assessment of the vaccination. I have taken the vaccinations and will take the booster shots shortly, but don’t believe people should be forced to take the shots if they don’t want them, although I would recommend the shots for those who are at risk.

MsGeorgiaWashington

SCOTUS needs term limits. It is clear to me they have been compromised. ALL AMERICANS, regardless of their employment, should have free will and the CONSTITUTIONAL right to say NO to these vaccines. THAT IS UNDER THE NUREMBERG CODE OF CONDUCT that the U.S. signed in 1947.
PLEASE READ THIS AND THEN MAKE YOUR OWN INFORMED DECISION.

1947 NUREMBERG CODE OF CONSENT PROVISIONS:
"The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamentally rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and further codified in the US. Code of Federal Regulations. * In addition to the US regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. * It is unlawful to conduct medical research even in the case of an emergency unless steps are taken to secure. informed consent of all participants. Article 6, section 3: In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent. Clearly, mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations fail this test on multiple fronts.

In Doe #1 versus Rumsfeld 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003) a federal court held that the United States military could not mandate Emergency Use vaccines for soldiers :”The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs”

{{ http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ }}

EVERY PERSON'S BODY ON THIS PLANET, IS SOVEREIGN AND THAT NO SINGLE PERSON OF ANY AGENCY OF ANY KIND, HAS THE RIGHT TO INJECT OR PROVIDE ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE ON A SOVEREIGN PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

["Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]

DOWNLOAD PDF HERE:
https://history.nih.gov/download/attachments/1016866/nuremberg.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1589152811742&api=v2