"it's just a mandate, mandates are not law".
On the surface this is a correct and perfectly logical statement. But know why I don't like it?
What happens if our corrupt and illegitimate Congress makes it a law? Now we have shot ourselves in the foot by implying we have to follow it because it's law. I don't care if they make a law that says you have to get the jab or face a firing squad, I'm not gonna follow unjust laws.
It kinda reminds me of the line I heard a lot and have even been guilty of saying myself "it's not even FDA approved"... Until it was. Then what? We all had to change our line of thinking. Good logic does not require this kind of tweaking.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I wanted to give my two cents. Thoughts on this?
Mandates not being laws, however, is a valid point that relates to the current obstruction imposed upon OSHA by the federal courts.
As John McAfee shared... the deep state is largely embedded within these very agencies, such that the laws passed have enabled these agencies then create hundreds of thousands of regulations
This is no democracy, but rather an autocracy.
Congress was the target points to the fact that this legislative body has been what has fueled such, and likely where voter fraud has been largely occurring to ensure that their agenda remains.
The executive authorities have been molested through judicial case law that has interpreted the Constitution and delegated authority away from the states and brought it into the broad scope of what policing powers have been determined to include, as well as what might pertain to interstate commerce.
I think you fail to recognize that the FDA approval meant nothing because the FDA-approved vaccine is NOT available within the United States. The only vaccine available is the Pfizer-BioNTech one that was reissued Emergency Use Authorization. Pfizer says these two can be used 'interchangeably' however such cannot be the case as both are different legally and in their delivery mechanisms.
If they were truly the same thing then there would be no true justification for only reissuing an EUA for the vaccine being used. If an FDA-approved vaccine was available, such would also be true that all other EUA's be rescinded.
I do not believe the company making the claim that they can be used in place of one another is based on any legal foundation to support that argument that anyone could make a EUA product compulsory.