Surpringly (at least to me) it looks like they actually have quite a bit of authority.
United States Federal Laws and Regulations for Control of Communicable Diseases
United States Code
The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. Sections 264-272 of the following portion of the code apply: Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 6A – Public Health Service, Subchapter II – General Powers and Duties, Part G – Quarantine and Inspection. Links are provided by the Government Printing Officeexternal icon.
Not exactly, the authority is derived from laws going back at least 100 years. The links to the actual statues are available in the link I provided previously. I'm reading through some now, and it's a bit scary actually.
“Law” and “statute” are different from each other as a law refers to some common rules made and followed by the society for a long time which are still being followed. These are not necessarily written whereas a statute refers to laws which have been passed as bills by the legislature of a country or have been written down and are consulted for use.
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-law-and-statute/#ixzz6lG2qJc6W
The supreme court has basically already ruled that masking is constitutional. (this is a copy of another comment of mine, but I think it shows the intent of the courts)
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
And this
Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
“no constitutional right is infringed by the Mask Ordinance’s mandate … and that the requirement to swear such a covering has a clear rational basis based on the protection of public health.” More to the point, the Court continued, “constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not … allow (citizens) to wholly shirk their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole…. After all, we do not have a constitutional right to infect others.”
"According to RFK Jr., the CDC is not an independent government agency but is actually a subsidiary of Big Pharma.
Greenmedinfo.com reports: Mr. Kennedy told EcoWatch, “The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency owns more than 20 vaccine patents and purchases and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines annually.”
CDC is also listed on Dunn & Bradstreet (only for private companies) as a for-profit company.
The ecowatch article no longer exists, I'm just pulling up of debonks for that article, or articles quoting it, but no other sources on DDG. Do you have anything?
That's very interesting. However, given what the Supreme Court has already said about masking, I highly doubt any attempts to challenge the CDC mandate is going to be successful. We'll see though, if lots of people aren't complying, they'll probably give up enforcing it. Wouldn't want to be one of the people they make an example out of though.
I'll copy/paste a other comment I made. Hope this helps!
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
And this
Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
“no constitutional right is infringed by the Mask Ordinance’s mandate … and that the requirement to swear such a covering has a clear rational basis based on the protection of public health.” More to the point, the Court continued, “constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not … allow (citizens) to wholly shirk their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole…. After all, we do not have a constitutional right to infect others.”
Unconstitutional...period. corporate united states certainly came up with that. Healthy people are not a risk so why have a compliance law when you can just removed the diseased people. Called a quarantine. Their corporate rules are designed to enslave while brainwashing you its for the public good all while promoting fear for a flu virus and exacerbating the sickness with mask Nd other useless but harmful rules. The sheep all go baaaaaaa. Enjoy the show.
Surpringly (at least to me) it looks like they actually have quite a bit of authority.
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html
Not exactly, the authority is derived from laws going back at least 100 years. The links to the actual statues are available in the link I provided previously. I'm reading through some now, and it's a bit scary actually.
The supreme court has basically already ruled that masking is constitutional. (this is a copy of another comment of mine, but I think it shows the intent of the courts)
But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
And this
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
"According to RFK Jr., the CDC is not an independent government agency but is actually a subsidiary of Big Pharma.
Greenmedinfo.com reports: Mr. Kennedy told EcoWatch, “The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency owns more than 20 vaccine patents and purchases and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines annually.”
CDC is also listed on Dunn & Bradstreet (only for private companies) as a for-profit company.
Dirty people work their.
The ecowatch article no longer exists, I'm just pulling up of debonks for that article, or articles quoting it, but no other sources on DDG. Do you have anything?
That's very interesting. However, given what the Supreme Court has already said about masking, I highly doubt any attempts to challenge the CDC mandate is going to be successful. We'll see though, if lots of people aren't complying, they'll probably give up enforcing it. Wouldn't want to be one of the people they make an example out of though.
Missed it do you happen to have exact phraseology from Supreme Court?
I'll copy/paste a other comment I made. Hope this helps! But the Supreme also said this (note, I am not arguing the merits, simply sharing the legal justifications for such mandates)
And this
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
Which was then used in Florida to uphold a mask mandate, after being challenged by citizens. Where they said this:
But there aren't lots of people not complying. They will always comply.
Over half the population in MS, LA, FL and AL ignore the mandates in the places I've been
Depends on where you live I think. Here in my county, probably only 40% mask.
Unconstitutional...period. corporate united states certainly came up with that. Healthy people are not a risk so why have a compliance law when you can just removed the diseased people. Called a quarantine. Their corporate rules are designed to enslave while brainwashing you its for the public good all while promoting fear for a flu virus and exacerbating the sickness with mask Nd other useless but harmful rules. The sheep all go baaaaaaa. Enjoy the show.