"Tonight, I'm announcing that the Department of Labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees that together employee[sic] over 80 million workers to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week," Biden pontificated on Thursday.

The edict hasn't actually been issued yet; it is only in the making.  The White House has given itself several weeks — even months, possibly — for OSHA to bring it into force.

After cratering his own approval rating down to an unprecedented 39% — the lowest ever for a Democrat president at this point in his term — Biden seems to have retreated from his imbecilic "Ready, Fire, Aim" Afghanistan withdrawal strategy, which he boastfully executed under an immovable August 31 deadline.

Instead, he's given himself a flexible timeframe if needed and even an escape route from the mandate if the pushback proves too damaging optically.  This as hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. citizens, U.S. visa holders, and Western allies still have no escape route from the new Texas-sized Democrat-created terror state of Talibanistan.

The administration may also be looking for a way to turn the conversation from what may become (and some are arguing already is) the greatest hostage crisis in U.S. history.  Could Biden be angling to get the GOP to stop talking about Afghanistan by infuriating them with a king-like edict that tramples the Constitution?  Time will tell.

But if he's genuinely planning to chain America with an unprecedented mandate, it will almost certainly be found unconstitutional, as were his other recent Constitution-usurping efforts to extend the CDC's renter eviction moratorium and illegally suspend Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy.  The Supreme Court torpedoed both of these Democrat power-enhancing schemes.

With two SCOTUS rebukes after less than eight months in office, it's become crystal-clear that Biden doesn't give much credence to the constitutional limits of government — especially if they get in his way of expanding the Democrat power base. 

One can imagine Biden reclining in the White House (possibly in a special room in the basement) and dreaming of a Biden-ista Revolution that creates an unstoppable permanent Democrat-controlled federal government, similar to what Democrats have done in California.

This brings us back to Biden's mandate.  Like the CDC mandate and Biden's border betrayal, Biden's handlers have assured and reassured the country that they are on solid legal ground.  The precedent, they say for the mandate, is the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, which states:

[I]n every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

But what Biden and the Democrat dictatorship fail to grasp, or acknowledge, is that much later in 1990, after SCOTUS had ruled that the Constitution affords a right to privacy as part of the liberty the Constitution guarantees, SCOTUS found that "the forcible injection of medication into a non-consenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty" (Washington v. Harper).

So as long as there is not a demonstrable "great danger" to the general public's health, the government can't order you to inject a vaccine into your body.

If we were in an H5N1 or Black Fungus pandemic where fatality rates were north of 60%, mandates would be not only understandable but welcomed.  The federal government would not have to twist arms, bribe, and force the population to get vaccinated if a vaccine were available.  More likely, there would be mayhem as people rush to get vaccinated.

But when the government has to use all its power, persuasion, profits, and punishments to push a vaccine, one has to ask, why?  How can a disease be so dangerous to the general public if it has an overall recovery rate, according to the CDC, of greater than 97–98% currently?  It's a stretch at best to legally there is a "great danger" to society, at least a natural one from the virus.  That there exists a great politically manufactured danger is another story.

"Yeah, but the vaccine has brought us to the 98% recovery point."  Not true, and here is where the mandate shows its ugly unscientific unevenness.

Even before the vaccine, the recovery rate during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was between 97% and 99.5%.  As the pandemic progressed, by September 2020 — several months before any vaccines were administered in the U.S. — the CDC said if you're between the ages of 0 and 70, you have a 99% survival rate.  And if you're over 70, the survival rate is nearly 95%.

So the survival rate is roughly the same today with the vaccine as at any time during the pandemic.

Facts and science, however, aren't important to Bolshevik Biden and the MSM (Marxist-Stream Media), the regime's revolutionary mouthpiece.  But instead of taking him to task on the anti-scientific basis of his mandate, they are bombarding the masses with relentless propaganda framing the unvaxxed as the new evil bourgeoisie.  Disagree, and the Democrat red guards will shout you down, censor you, deplatform you, and threaten you, or, if they can, have you fired.  Marx, Lenin, and Mao would be proud.

But the science cannot be shouted down, and so, eventually, it will eviscerate the mandate, not only in courts of law but the court of public opinion.

One of the most obvious scientific facts the mandate completely ignores is that there have been 41 million confirmed cases of COVID19 in the U.S.  Add a mega-million more to that number for the many asymptomatic cases that were never confirmed with a test.  Add even more for the mild and moderate cases that were never reported since the infected knew they would recover just fine.

Whatever that number is, these previously infected are probably the most immune of all.  At least, that's what the science is telling us.  According to the National Institutes of Health, more than 95% of those who have been infected develop lasting immunity similar to those vaccinated.

Science magazine reported in a groundbreaking study done in Israel last month that those who have recovered from COVID-19 have 13 times the immunity protection as those who have been vaccinated.

And according to a study published in Nature Communication, the 41million–plus who have been infected have or have had at least seven months of lasting immunity via stable antibodies (the NIH study found up to 8 months).  However, those who have been vaccinated, according to a study released last month by researchers at Oxford university, see a much faster rate of immunity decline.  According to their results, the Pfizer vaccine decays in immunity and protection by as much as 22% for every 30 days after the second dose.  Natural immunity doesn't.

Science invalidates Biden's mandate, which unjustly and illegally discriminates against those who have had COVID-19 and likely have better immunity than those vaccinated.  But there is no exception in his dictate for the tens of millions with natural immunity.  Then again, leftist revolutions don't make exceptions, only extinctions.

The blatant unconstitutionality, illegality, and unscientific hypocrisy of the Biden mandate  — if it ever really becomes one — will sink it.  And if not in the courts, in the states, where nearly half the nation has already affirmed that it will not comply.

Mark Hanna holds an M.A. in international studies and has provided briefings to government officials on immigration, radical Islam, and other national security issues.  He has worked for CNN as well as NBC and PBS affiliates and has been published in Real Clear Politics, PJMedia, ZeroHedge, and The Investigative Project.  He can be reached at mhanna@protonmail.com.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.