Are Biden's Vaccine Mandates Legal?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
President Biden is using OSHA to force most of the American workforce to get vaccinated. Is that legal?
☕️ GET your first bag of coffee FREE with Trade: legaleagle.link/trade
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
⚖️ What should I cover next?
☕️ GET your first bag of coffee FREE with Trade: legaleagle.link/trade
Cover your misunderstanding that Congress does not “control” the citizens.
Wtf are you thinking?
Cover how PAPR are 100% effective while vaccines are not.
The episode of the office "the deposition"
Oh sweet I didn’t know the circus was in town.. well anyways is there any chance you could cover some of orange man’s ideas to get back in office? I haven’t heard from him lately so it might be a good time to sum up what he’s been doing over the year
Maybe cover the legal saga around Activision Blizzard?
It amazes me how little everyone knows but how sure they are of what they say these days.
you just said absolutely nothing
And then don't want to be told they're wrong when proven evidence is provided
@@power2084 You need this broken down for you?
Everyone knows jack shit. Everyone believes that they know the absolute truth. These two things directly conflict.
The problem with the world is that foolish people are so full of themselves and wise men so full of doubts. According, I think to Bertrand Russel.
@@power2084 you just proved the OP's point with your post.
I realize that these longer videos take more resources, time, and effort to make, but I prefer these to the CZcams Shorts.
The shorts are just a means to get more eyes on the channel.
Apparently the algorithm is/was favoring shorts? If I wanted tiktok I'd go to tiktok, youtube doesn't need to try to replicate it...
This. I'm so tired of shorts on this channel.
The shorts aren't a replacement, they're a supplement. Longer content like this won't go away just cause shorts exist. I like that he does the shorts as well, cause it allows for much quicker and immediate response to goingsons where these videos take a lot of time to research/script/record.
@@Khunkurisu I wish he'd upload them as normal videos though, CZcams for some reason removes most of the playback controls on shorts, making the viewing experience much worse.
3:45 - Chapter 1 - The OSHA rule
4:20 - Chapter 2 - The legality of this law
5:25 - Chapter 3 -Does the constitution prohibits making vaccines mandatory ?
7:40 - Chapter 4 - Does the federal government have the power to compel vaccinations through OSHA
9:20 - Chapter 5 - Can congress delegate it's authority to the executive branch ?
14:10 - Chapter 6 - So, how will OSHA proceed ?
14:45 - Chapter 7 - Potential problems of this OSHA rule
16:15 - End roll ads
ITS, damn it.
Chapter 2 and 3 - No it doesnt. General Washington did not force his men to take a non-existent vaccination at the time (it was variolation and turned out to be have bad results).
The Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905 ruling was only for a city with an emergency. It did NOT give the FEDERAL government any right to do the same.
Chapter 4 - The president can but OSHA CANNOT . Osha can only mandate specific case/needs for specific jobs not act in step with the president.
(5th circuit court recently agreed and struck down Biden because of this - WAY over reaching).
AGAIN Legal Eagle conflates misinformation and is wrong.
the Constitution doesn't have to prohibit the government from doing something. The Constitution has to authorize it or else the government can't do it.
Every once in a while, LegalEagle makes a video that is at least 85-90% unbiased and attempts to redeem himself for the flood of biased law opinions that are in favor of the left and/or progressive govt.
This isn’t one of those videos 😑
@@inglebear84 So True. His take on the Rittenhouse verdict isn't one either. You can tell he watches a lot of CNN.
I'm still curious about how the 100 employee thing works when it comes to franchises. There may be hundreds of thousands of McDonalds or Subway or Hilton employees but they aren't employed by that brand, rather by a franchisee who may have less than 100 employees.
Interesting! I think you just found a loophole
@@nightowl7666 But within that loophole is also a loophole for the working man. If businesses and franchises have more than 100 employees (most of whom are part-time workers so that the businesses can save on paying out benefits for full-time employees), and they make the decision to cut back so that they can exploit the loophole of having less than 100 employees, they then will have to give more hours to whatever staff they have remaining, increasing the odds that many of those employees who are currently working part-time will get full-time hours and, thus, mandated benefits for full-time employees.
Usually a single franchisee don't have more than 20-50 employees
@@nightowl7666 Usually not, no.
But there ARE businesses and franchise groups that skirt around having to pay full-time benefits by hiring on more employees than needed and only giving them enough hours to qualify for part-time because -- at least up until this executive order goes into effect -- that was more cost effective than hiring less workers and providing most (or all) of them with benefits that a full-time position offers.
So yeah, it's not going to affect everyone. But the businesses that ARE large enough to know better, but who have been actively exploiting loopholes in the system in order to give their workers less than their workers deserve, are going to have to make the choice to either switch those employees to full-time (and pay benefits for them but not have to comply with this executive order) OR keep their current part-time employees (and pay for vaccination PTO and testing but not have to pay for full-time benefits).
@@nightowl7666, And each franchisee is a separate employer?
Remember when The Patriot Act was supposed to be temporary and even had a sunset clause? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Nothing is more permanent than temporary.
@@zealotguy false
@@Ciph3rzer0
Name one "temporary" measure the government repealed and never tried to reinstate. I will wait.
@@zealotguy assault weapons ban?
@@Jestokost they've been desperately trying to reinstate that since it sunset. Try again.
We’ve got the front facing camera, the partial side profile camera, next will be a ceiling scalp camera.
Nah, next up I want a West Wing-style Walk and Talk
Promptly followed by the addition of old school skate vid fisheye lens camera for a sick eagle flip
No, next will be Justice Cam. It'll be footage of various eagles but they'll be dispensing justice.
Bailiff cam when?
Don't tempt me.
The 5th circuit court disagrees with you about the legality of the order.
Also, when did OSHA stop becoming a federal agency? Jacobson vs. Mass. gives the right to mandate it statewide, not federal.
There was a lawsuit in every circuit level. They all got condensed down and it is going forward in the 6th circuit
This didn't age well.
The pace at which you speak is so perfect. The flow of info is fast enough not to be boring but still comprehensible.
I'm guessing that's the hallmark of a polished lawyer: the ability to keep a jury awake and engaged.
Edited** I'm a video editor and can tell you that the video is sped up a bit.
@@NYCbabyJes Doesn't surprise me, it'd probably be rather exhausting to keep going at this pace the entire time.
Here’s a tip, adjust the speed of the video playback if you have to
I disagree I look up for two seconds ever I missed three chapters of his books he is reading
The concept of Dual Sovereignty is one that seems hard for lots of people to grasp, both internally and externally, largely due to the underlying problem of "who is in charge of whom?". Perhaps a more in-depth discussion on this is in order?
nice who/whom usage
@@Pyth110 and what would the difference would be if you don't mind me asking?
@@linkholder
Who is the subject of the sentence, while whom is the object.
Its the difference between
"Who owns this?" and "katy was driven to school by whom?"
Try replacing who with he/she and whom with his/her.
You can't say "her owns this" but you can say "she owns this" for instance.
@@linkholder who/whom follows the they/them rule.
As for what difference it would make? Merely grammar. The overall message wouldn’t change.
In a federal republic with multiple levels of government, sorting out who's in charge is never easy.
without even watching the video, yes it's legal.
Polio vaccine was mandated in all 50 states in the late 50's and is still mandated today.
@@davidmeadows5627 not what the CDC says, and i trust them more than you
@@davidmeadows5627 Why trust you? You realize the people feeding you these dumb lines have their own shit to sell right?
+@@davidmeadows5627 CDC are DOCTORS, you aren't one.
OSHA is out only protection against unethical business practices.
Imagine being told to work under dangerous conditions without safety equipment. Thank OSHA that you are given safety equipment for free by your employer.
I would use "elimination or reduction in work hazards" after what I saw a professor of ethics say and do.
I appreciate the content of this video, but I wanted to make a comment that's completely off the topic itself:
I love the lighting setup you have running in this video. It's warmer, a little less harsh than past videos, and the light/shadow and contrast work is nearly flawless, in my opinion. Whatever you're doing here, just keep doing exactly that!
Maybe crank up the fill light on stage left just slightly. Seems a bit too moody as it is lol
@@WCFilms Agreed. Can't really see the library ladder!
feels like i'm watching a movie lol
i DON'T like this set up the hard shadow on the left isn't very appealing.. maybe you were going for a more dramatic effect? I'm with West coast here.
The slightly moving camera angle from the side is amazing
Every time it cuts to the second angle on LegalEagle, I think of the Wayne's World "Camera 1, camera 2" scene.
Do you know how he does the movement
@@AbbeyMarieEsp No I'm pretty sure an eagle is carrying the camera
I am really bothered by the switching from head on view, where it feels like he is talking to me, to that off axis angle that feels like he is talking to someone else.
Waiting for the "EXTREME CLOSEUP!!"
@@jas.cinema Looks like it's on a motorized slider going back and forth, though I could be wrong. Something about the shot is just awful though. I think that the horizon is slightly off making it look like an Adam West Batman shot.
It's so weird to see the difference between Denmark and the US right now. Us Danes have lifted all of the restrictions because we got vaccinated and our infection numbers are low, so it's already back to normal for us.
We stupid over here
Nobody wants to give up any kind of freedom if they can’t prove themselves that it wouldn’t be pointless
Affectively there’s a large group in the US that once their freedom at all cost and will spend their whole life staring at a grain of sand to avoid giving it up.
I am jealous of you guys in Denmark, it seems like you're all grown up, here in the US, most people over 18 are simply post-puberty children, most aren't mentally adults anymore.
Another Dane here, it’s such a liberating feeling being able to live life (almost) normally again.
@Tim Blaine you really don’t get it or just making a poor straw-man?
Georgia has been back to normal since February. Only some states are still denying liberty to their population.
This video hasn't aged well.
No it hasn't. It's amazing that people still listen to this guy.
I don't care that he's requiring the vaccine, to me it's important that all who can get vaccinated do so. My only concern is the enforcement of this executive order through the use of OSHA. OSHA only has like 1800 inspectors nation wide who have to check MILLIONS of worksites. In 2018, OSHA only managed to conduct 32k inspections. So unless they really amp up funding to OSHA's federal offices to increase their capabilities, this isn't going to mean much in terms of enforcement.
I believe some employers prefer their staff be vaccinated... so this way... they aren't the bad guy mandating their staff be vaccinated... but they are only adhering to the government mandate.
You don't have to inspect every site. It's just the threat of being chosen at random to be inspected.
It's like driving to speed limit.
If everybody drove 20mph over the limit, there is no way they could stop everyone.
But no one wants to be the one out of a thousand to get pulled over and given a ticket.
This is how all OSHA rules work.
@@mickeyrube6623 you haven't been to southern California then. "They can't pull over all of us so we should all speed" is the attitude on the highways here, and I love it. You drive the speed limit on the freeway a lot of people are going to pass you. That being said please get vaccinated.
Only way I can see this being enforced is if OSHA asks for proof of vaccinations. For example, the place I work at scanned my card, and input lot numbers into a spreadsheet, and checked the lot numbers against a database. I know that's extreme, and 99% of places won't do that, but it's an example of how OSHA could enforce this without having to do in person inspections.
@@mickeyrube6623 but even with that in mind 1800 people are just not enough as an deterrent.
I would for you to do an episode on the series For Life, loosely based on the true story of Isaac Wright Jr., who was imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. While incarcerated, he became an attorney and helped overturn the wrongful convictions of twenty of his fellow inmates, before finally proving his own innocence. I am curious to hear your thoughts and grade it for realism. Particularly how a an inmate can become a Bar certified lawyer, knowing their character may be in question. Thanks (if you get a chance to read this)
I’ll have to look this one up. Thanks for the tip.
That sounds interesting. Is it on Netflix?
@@SuperHappyAlice1, I just looked and didn’t see it.
@@SuperHappyAlice1 no, it's an ABC show, so it's on Hulu
Or the movie just mercy. Better movie than how to kill a mockingbird imo.
I used to watch these videos for fun. I'm going for my masters in accounting right now and I'm having to take actual law classes for the first time. My professor just spoke about this the other day and so now I feel like I should be taking notes on the video 🙃. These videos make it so much easier to understand everyday issues in law.
It's nice to have things broken down like this and be easy to follow along. I swear too many people just assume stuff and go with it like it's fact. The day of age of being able to find anything online is a blessing and a curse.
As someone who also uses my hands a lot while explaining things, I realized while watching this that I actually understand people better when they do it too.
Seconded.
I wish I could remember the source but around 2005 I remember some study on psychology or anthropology that found students actually learn math better when the instructor consistently uses the same hand gesture when expressing the same concept (equality, difference, product, etc.). I never followed up on it, but it always made sense to me that we're wired for communication and meaning by gestures, but most people don't really tap into that potential (except for perhaps ASL, etc.).
@@frankzeppelin Ah, so you're one of the few people who understands that humans evolved for *full body communication* ! All this digital and videochat stuff is great for job interviews and such, but definitely not dating or anything that requires more communication of *subtle* crap like emotions n' junk.
After the past 2 years I now practically HATE videochats for anything non-essential or emotional.
Only sort of related, if my mom knows she needs to not talk (e.g. parent teacher meeting, letting the teacher explain everything) she sit's on her hands, because she won't interupt if she can't use them.
@@fleurpouvior2967 Tú mamá es inteligente, amigo.
Its so nice and relaxing that there are people like LegalEagle who actually take the time to dissect the laws more than our own government. Wish some of our politicians did this or watch this channel to actually learn a thing or two
Legal eagle is awesome. I’m a lawyer myself (prosecutor) yet I still learn new things from him; primarily stuff on the civil law side of things that I haven’t used since law school or on current events that I’m a bit behind on.
Many laws in the US system are vague on purpose allowing for subjective wiggle room... really are entire judiciary system is proof that morality and ethics are a natural born trait aka emotional intelligence (for the majority) obv. Some neuro issues cause this to be lacking or extreme. All signs point to the majority of people overall wanting the same thing.
@@Ryan-nn1kl I'd argue most US laws are there to prevent/mitigate liability, rather than existing for moral reasons. The law is not that wholesome
@@Ryan-nn1kl statutes are vague because it’s impossible for congress to address every single possible scenario that could fall under that law. That is why they appoint agency’s to help fill in the blanks on certain issues. Court decisions make up the vast majority of our laws however, as they interpret and apply the law to specific controversies that arise and thus create precedent for all future issues that are similar.
I would argue that a good number of politicians DO know what they are saying is wrong but want to take advantage of the average laymen not knowing the law. If they make it sound compelling enough, it can FEEL correct and that's all they need.
I love how congress can just kick responsibilities over to the executive branch. Screw the whole premise of local representation let’s just give more power to an executive and appointed individuals who rarely have greater than a 50% approval rating.
Great video! Thank you for all the explanations and such. That moving camera scenes are a nice touch!
8:00 "the idea [behind creating OSHA] is that the executive is able to act more quickly than congress"
12:10 "it usually takes OSHA an average of 10 years to [set a standard]"
And yet, it really does seem they're faster.
Yeah because while they still basically go through the same process for an ETS as a general standard there's a requirement it be introduced faster so the amount of back and forth involved usually is curtailed.
How long exactly does it take to congress to act when not under an emergency?
Based on my reading of the federalist and anti-federalist papers, the delegation of those powers to the executive defies the spirit of the separation of powers. The threat level and public opinion were to be the mechanism by which the legislature were spurred not increasing the power of the executive.
@@arturoaguilar6002 it depends but often 2 years from introduction to passing congress and that's just the first step, there's still committees and the senate before it reaches the president's desk and it can languish there a while too. The national do not call registry was law in 6 weeks which is virtually unheard of in US politics outside unusual circumstances (the Patriot act was 5 weeks in a kneejerk reaction to 9/11).
@@arturoaguilar6002 Depends, giving someone benefits? 2-3 months
Congress passing a regulation? 6 mo to 27 years
Congress allowing a state to join? 1 mo to unknown (over 70 years at this point depending on how you look at it over 120 years...)
Amendments to the Constitution? 3 mo to 203 years (27th amendment was on their docket to get taken acre of from 1789-1992 when it was ratified becoming the 27th amendment.)
Examples of still pending amendments are:
District of Columbia getting Representation for Taxation - pending since 1978
Equal rights for Women - pending since 1972
Child Labor regulation - Pending since 1927
Slavery as a guaranteed right - pending since 1861
Titles of Nobility strip away American Citizenship - pending since 1810
I kinda prefer just the one camera angle. The lower angle makes you look like you're on a TV drama. Maybe that's what you're going for; I don't know.
Agreed, it feels weird and distracting.
when it's one camera in front it's like being spoken to directly, the second camera feels like he's talking to someone else
He is a huge fan of Law and Order so may be going for TV drama
He's most likely hiding cuts in the footage.
@@jaimefish173 normal jump cuts should suffice?
As far as I'm concerned, no government agencies has any right to tell me what I must put inside me or my family.
Now I have to be fair on the federal government's part If you are working for the federal government or getting any type of funds from them they have a right to tell you what to do within the legal base.
@@attiepollard7847 I don't agree with that. In that case, the federal government is your employer, and no employer should be able to dictate medical requirements for its employees.
@@light-master only if you are working for a federal contract company
*The Fifth Circuit has entered the chat
I've seen people in the military complain about having to get vaccinated.
Ma'am you literally work for the government
Yeah, if you're serving in the military, the government owns your body...
What I don't get is when I entered the air force I either had to show vaccination records or get them right then and there. Then anytime I went to any other country it usually came with vaccines. This isn't anything new
@@BaronSengir1008 Tattoo fines be real
Hold up, I signed up to get shot, not shots!
they told my Unit to ether get vaccinated or GTFO.... 3 NCOs chose to get out... made no sense because they were close to retirement
Just a clarification, but the previous mandates only applied to in person workers. I'm a work from home contractor and it hasn't been until this new order goes into effect that they are saying we are going to be required to be vaccinated. (I got mine a long time ago, just specifying what the orders were at least for contractors)
Bump
This is something that i'm curious about myself in the fact that remote employees should fall out of this equation due to the fact that they are not a workplace hazard which is what this ETS is more focused on unless im mistaken.
@@doncrispens6932 most remote workers also occasionally have to go on site or to offices. I only meet people in person like once a quarter despite being a fully remote worker.
@@unixtreme yup, same thing for college classes. I don’t go in person this semester but I do have to submit vaccination status / if I’ll be at campus every single day.
@@NeonNotch yes my school decided the same thing, though they’re only requiring it to register for spring classes which is in november. they decided that it doesn’t matter if you choose to take only online classes next spring, you need to be vaccinated in order to sign up.
This is one of the most awesome channels ive ever seen. I became a fan from getting recommended one of your videos reacting to better call saul and watching and loving it. My favorite part about that show is the "lawyer talk" and writing and to hear you break it down from a real lawyers perspective is awesome! Im now just a big fan of watching your videos to help educate myself a little about the legal world and how laws work. anyways keep it up brother!
When the 5th circuit court turns your eagle into a pigeon.
Lol
Smooth transition to the ad.
Almost as smooth as that delicious Trade coffee.
At least 50% of my motivation to watch these videos is for the acrobatics he takes to segue into the ads
The new panning side cam looks like a cutscene in a game 😅
Exciting, yes? 😊
Lol, when you're afk and the camera starts panning around.
Reasons to watch LegalEagle :
1. Easy to understand legal explanations.
2. Seamless segues into the sponsor, which no matter who it is or what the topic was, always seems to go together.
10/10 knowing that it's spelled segue.
Sugoi
Reasons not to watch legaleagle:
1- blatant partisan hack
@@RK-kg6on sure...
@@keithjackewicz8423 So you admit he's a partisan hack?
I was expecting an absolute shit show in the comments but I’m pleasantly surprised by how civil and nice the comments are
Of course they're nice. Nothing else is allowed.
The people against it are hiding by responding to the civil comments.
People who care about understanding the Laws in this country tend to be better educated and therefore less likely to be assholes or GRU trolls hiding behind Internet Anonymity.
Gfy
@@m.k.c.5212 I love the name paired with the comment. You are interneting the right way.
The important defense of OSHA being involved is not that they protect a worker from a virus. Rather, they protect a worker from /catching the virus at work/, which is very strongly an OSHA thing.
If the Vaccine *prevented* someone from catching, or transmitting the Virus, there might be an Argument.
@@lokithecat7225 vaccinated people have under a 1% breakthrough infection rate, and are so far only able to transmit the delta variant for a period of only 3 to 4 days, whereas unvaccinated can transmit all variants for a period of 10 to 14 days. Sounds like increased protection and decreased transmisibility to me.
@@wm9482 Lmfao if you actually believe that.
@@SolidBladeSnake its not about belief, thats what the data shows
@@theepicbeast2969 could scarcely have said better myself
Unfortunately, the people who most need to see this will never willingly watch or acknowledge any of the points made here.
When LegalEagle went into the ad segment it felt like a community episode just for Jeff to sell coffee a producer likes.
Getting fancy with the camera work. I'm surprised you haven't done a full Matrix-style "bullet time" shot yet. ;P
The honor system only benefits the dishonest.
You think that someone who uses drugs is undeserving....
You ever buy a beer with an EI check?
How many credits does this class give me toward my CZcams legal degree?
Seriously, l think it is a fantastic legal analysis of these mandates regardless of our political leaning.
Huh? Political leaning?
Since when is this a political issue any more than, say, buying groceries or driving a car?
@@baronvonbeandip welcome to america, where everything is a political issue
@@baronvonbeandip it’s totally a political issue because the right has made it one. Anything the left wants to do the right will oppose. As the comment said, welcome to America in the 2020s.
@@steviesevieria1868 And everything the right wants, the left will oppose as well.... I'm beginning to hate politics.
@@kennashey not true though. The left almost always caves to the right and supports a bloated military budget and corporate bail-outs.
I'm going to hold you to break thru cases being incredibly rare. 11\16\21, lol eating those words yet...
Damn i realized he seems happy about something that was suspended. Also, back to the office? Where do you all live that you arent back to work. Shit I've been back to work for almost a year and a few months now. If your state still has you all out of work you need to get out of there.
Constructive Critique: That 2nd camera used during some shots before popping up the text is distracting, I don't recommend doing this technique in future videos.
It's most likely not a second camera. It's same camera they just crop in in editing. They do it because they are hiding a cut in the footage. If they don't it this video would have jump cuts all over the place, which would be a lot worst. There is just too much info when they filmed it and they had to cut it down to make the video watchable.
Great content!
I'd like to say I'm not a huge fan of how you between two camera angles. Your scene composition is exellent for the main camera, but I personally don't think that transfers to the second camera.
He needs to put in ton of cameras so he can do Matrix-style shots where he turns his head one way and the point of view simultaneously orbits in the other direction.
He can make it work if he looks into the camera
I think it's mostly the lighting - being aggressively shortlit (light on other side of face) doesn't work here.
(The two camera angles are to make editing out pauses or mistakes easier and less noticeable so the second angle is likely to stay)
Sharing this with my peers. Please keep up the good work
Been following you for a short little while and i love the legal information you share. Although it may not apply to me as I am a Canadian, but i enjoy seeing the breakdowns that you do. Also that was a smoothe segue into the sponsor for the video.
I'm 55, 3rd generation military brat, and from what I remember, all military personnel AND their families HAD to get vaccinated/inoculated for various things whenever being deployed or transferred anywhere other than the US. Mandatory, like....forever. It wasn't "unconstitutional" then, why is it now?
A few of those vaccines have permanently injured military members. This changed the law so that you cant mandate EUA vaccines to military members. So, this can change the law again as the FDA approved one version of the Pfizer vaccine that isnt even being propagated throughout the US without long term studies.
@@thatblackdude3217 The US military anti-malaria medicine, mefloquine, might have injured members, as well .
@@thatblackdude3217 This has nothing to do with the mandate being unconstitutional and accepted before.
Most vaccines in the present are safe and mRNA vaccines have been researched for a long time. They aren't new.
It makes sense for Military to require vaccination, because other countries in which you may be deployed, set the requirements. If another country has laws that say you can't visit them unless you are vaccinated - well that's up to them and their laws. Of course if you are at war then that goes out the window - but until then you want your military personal to be able to visit a country that you want to deploy them to without causing a diplomatic issue. So you asked - what's different? well that's just one thing I can think ok.
@@mechanomics2649 if it's not new then when was the first human trial of an mRNA vaccine, and when was the first successful trial? They've studied mRNA for decades - but what about successful human trials? Those ARE new.
You’ve really got to do a video on what’s going on with Activision Blizzard seems like every few days their law suit has spiralled a bit more.
Maybe he's waiting for something more final to happen
I hope he does one eventually. Its such a ride
Meh he can't market it to his democrat biased audience and is a gaming company who is probably known to little percentage of his viewers does not make much financial sense to him I guess
Incorrect statement at 3:07--"...the benefit is pretty obvious: if you demand that your contractors get vaccinated the members of the federal government are less likely to be infected." Per John Hopkins and reported by APR (19 Sep 21), vaccinated people can still contract and spread COVID19 and its variants. Does this play a role in the legality of the E.O.?
That is a very misleading way of summarizing the Johns Hopkins report. Not all vaccinated individuals can spread it as you imply, just the breakthrough cases, and likely at a much lower rate as well. Read the full report from JHU again, not just the cherry picked sensationalized statement. Since breakthrough infections occur at a significantly lower rate statistically than unprotected community spread, his statement is accurate.
Thanks for another great video! You put so much time and research into these videos, and it's all really informative!
Why even bother going through OSHA if you can just allow private citizens to sue people who aren’t vaccinated and collect damages from them
Omg yes
Do you really not understand how ridiculous that is? I know this is sort of a "yaass queen" snarky post, not something really thought out and genuine, but I'm going to respond anyways.
You are an organism interacting with an environment which you only have limited control over. Disease and illness is a part of human existence and while we should try to take control of the factors we can, operating under the presumption that health and not getting sick is the default will lead you to very dark places soon. Suing someone who may have unintentionally exposed you as an asymptomatic carrier because they were unvaccinated makes absolutely no sense. Would you do the same were you to have caught the disease from a vaccinated person? What is even the purpose of the vaccine if you continue to live in fear and operate as if it actually isn't protecting you at all because there is some boogieman out there trying to get you sick?
Damages for what? People who are vaccinated still get infected and can infect you too LOL
@@robertjonez5 And people who aren't vaccinated get infected and spread much much much much much much much more than one who is.
It's not complicated.
@@Shadewaltz that's all hypothesis
I feel like you forgot to mention that while what you said is the case in our legal system under normal circumstances, these are not normal times. We are in a time where the Scotus has effectively overturned their own precedence, the Conservatives on the Scotus have shown they are willing to put partisan politics above their duty.
That's because our founders didn't imagine political parties that would try packing the SCOTUS with partisans and they assumed that life would mean they would serve for 10 years or so at most before dying, not serve 40-50 years.
@@Lobsterwithinternet you mean how Biden is actively trying to increase the number of seats to pack it
@@Gotenks7Kid still in line for the founding fathers.
Texas was clever by making it a “bounty system” that’s not enforceable at the governmental level. This was explicitly done to skirt judicial review.
SCOTUS passed on it simply because they weren’t sure what was going to happen and are waiting for a lawsuit to come first. They’re about to get their want.
A physician in San Antonio on September 6 performed an abortion for a woman who was past 6 weeks of pregnancy and has publicly admitted this and dared people to sue him.
Two lawyers, one from Arkansas, and one from Illinois, have taken him up on that dare and even beat the anti-abortion groups to the punch. The funny thing is that both of the attorneys suing him are both pro-choice and are saying they want the courts to declare this law unconstitutional.
I’ll definitely be paying attention to that.
@@Gotenks7Kid you do know that the number of seats has changed multiple times right?
Thank you so much for this channel. I love backing my arguments with facts and people more knowledgeable than myself.
I’m afraid the current Supreme Court doesn’t agree with your argument of OSHAs powers, but you kind of knew that.
Where
It's for the greater good, but Americans "want to do what they want". One of the most entitled nations if not the most entitled nation on the planet
I hate to break it to you but that's what America's all about. For better or for worse want to to what I want is exactly how I live my life
Some of us aren't morons, and do what is required of us to move society forward.
We were founded on the concept of individual rights; which I am all for----BUT this is a situation in history where the greater good should trump (sorry) someone acting like a teenager insisting on his rights. And I think it's a bit laughable that the same people who insist on the right to control their own bodies are usually the people who are against a woman's right to control her own body.
@@timriehl1500 What a revealing statement.
@@davidmeadows5627 Don't be such an anarchist!
I work security in northern California. I don't need to say anything more about my demographic. That said, I was doing security for a board meeting and some of the claims are just...self defeating and they don't even have the intelligence to realize it.
Them: "There was not enough long term testing! There are all these long term side effects!"
Me: "...wait. How did anyone find long term side effects if there wasn't any long term testing?"
Them: 😐😑😐😠
They also hate wind turbine. Like. A lot. A lot a lot. I can't believe that's what gets leveled at my city council. I don't blame politicians for embezzling now since they're probably trying to buy an island and GTFO at this point, lol.
While legal law (for lack of a better word or term) can be quite complicated, but you make it very easy to understand. Thank you so much.
interesting, the court had a different view. Not sure how you missed, some of the major ways the court would view this case.
As always, great informative content.
I want to offer some feedback as a viewer because often the only feedback a creator might get is the rebound from the algorithm. The side camera was surprisingly distracting in this video. You have a great talk to camera demeanor which really connects with the audience (me) and makes your message a lot more clear. You also have a light gag/comedic aura that shines in the front on shot. With the exception of the gag at the beginning, the side camera gave it a more documentary feel which really broke the conversational connection and made me think “on look it’s trying to be cinematic” rather than focusing on the content and I had to rewind the video to actually remember what you just said.
Yeah I have to agree, I am not a fan of the side camera, although I'm suddenly seeing a whole lot of it these days.
thirding that sentiment. it felt needlessly dramatic and distracting
Yeah I have to agree. I was thinking the same thing. I was just thinking, “Who is he looking at?”
I came here to say basically the same thing, so +1
I disagree 100% with this comment. This is so unsolicited it’s rude. The cinematography is up to the creator, there’s no objective way to do it. In fact, I’d encourage him to keep doing what he’s doing, it keeps the video much more engaging.
Canada is doing something similar, except no religious exception here
In direct contradiction to our Human Rights Charter.
I'm really not sure what people are even getting a religious exemption for. What part of a vaccine goes against a person's religion?
Is it a general ban on modern health care?
@@Anxiathy you’re definitely the special kid in class who calls themselves a sovereign citizen.
@@Anxiathy nope, it's not. Go read Section 1 again.
@@Anxiathy As a lawyer, I always find it surprising that people forget about the other half of Charter issues. Governments can pass laws that infringe rights if they are justified under s. 1.
This aged horribly. The 5th Circuit has said that this mandate will not be allowed to proceed.
Thank you.
They did? That's fantastic!!
I loved that segue to your video sponsor. Well done!
your health freedom only extends as far it doesn't effect another person that why their are laws allowing stores, resteruants and churches to ban smokers.
Exactly why this shouldn’t be allowed vaccine does not affect spread
THIS EXACTLY.
@@dexterrkk3711 They actually do tamp it down, but it's really cute you think that.
@@dexterrkk3711 Do you know how vaccines work? Even if it doesn’t 100% stop the spread, an 70% reduction in spread is more than enough to eradicate the virus. BUT, only if close to 100% of people get the vaccine! It’s not “your choice” because it “only affects you”, its the fact that if enough people do not get the vaccine then the vaccine will not do its job properly, leading to more deaths and more lockdowns.
That 99% survival rate is WITH hospital care, and in my town the hospital cannot keep up with the amount of cases coming in. That survival rate without hospital care drops extremely dramatically, and since no ambulances are available to bring people to the hospital, people are dying in their homes at a rate closer to 20%. Sources: My friends and family who all work at that hospital and who are all working 12 hours 7 days a week.
It’s funny to see people try to prove something wrong when it’s clear that they have no idea what they’re talking about. Maybe get a degree in virology or talk to someone who does have a degree in virology and then you will be able to form an opinion from there.
@@jennifervalentine8955 i just listen to the cdc and not the administration u do u though
That feeling when you understand the law terminology of a LegalEagle video more than the coffee terminology.
So THAT segue into the paid promotion was so corny and I cannot stop laughing. I love it!
Are you going to do a follow up on this now that the Vaccine Mandates were overturned?
Wow, the camera work and editing are a lot more dynamic in this one. Great job!
As a safety professional, I find all the armchair Constitutional scholars adorable. They read the Bill of Rights and think the government doesn't have the authority to tell anyone to do anything. One guy even tried to tell me that OSHA publishes recommendations, not mandates.
There’s a reason why I use two phrases whenever I’m describing the greatest concerns I have in the workplace: “Never meddle in the affairs of HIPAA” and “Never meddle in the affairs of OSHA.” And I really hope that armchair individual doesn’t work in a factory or other manual labor situation, because they really ought to hope for their own sake that OSHA’s actions aren’t just “recommendations”
The saying I always see on the subject: "All the safety codes are written in blood." I haven't worked too many jobs that were overly dangerous, but yeah, they aren't just recommendations.
Naw man, that's the CSB's job, not OSHA's XD People who genuinely think the government can't tell them what to do have never been arrested ...
@@Silentgrace11 The same govt who was involved in sketchy Ops? The same one who dumped guns and drugs into black communities? How much power should they really have?
@@CARBONHAWK1 🤦♂️
"I enjoy something that tastes like hot chocolate and pairs well with milk and sugar"
You want hot chocolate
Every other attempt to answer this question I've seen has just said yes or no. You give the nuance of a real answer.
Thanks.
Important thing to remember and I'm sure as he's a lawyer he would likely point it out as well. It is only A real answer not THE real answer.
@@tylerwhite3196 He's also a Dem hack so will bend the law as hard as possible to make it "legal".
@@Macca-95 Okay give an example of how he is bending the law to support his point.
@@Macca-95 there litterally is a precedent of this that he showed in the video. How is this bending the law?
@@tylerwhite3196 Agreed. The most important nuance is whatever the highest court to see this in a courtroom decides the final answer is. As with much of the American legal system, we can only "best guess" the answer until then.
And even after. Because new cases mix in established precedent and new laws overturn what was legal or wasn't.
This is helpful, thanks LegalEagle.
Is it bad that every time I see an attorney's CZcams video (including this one) that asks a question, I say "It depends" before clicking on it?
It depends.
It’s a reasonable and smart way to approach difficult topics. Few things are so black and white
At my law school we’re taught day 1 that the answer to every legal question is “it depends”
A Smith i also say it depends!
It depends; are you an Attorney Tom fan?
Aged like milk.
Hey! Loved this, and love the channel. Just some feedback: I really don’t like these alternative camera angles and panning. I would much prefer that you continue to use one angle and jump cuts. It makes it feel like you all are trying really hard to emulate a TV show, which I dislike. Thank you for listening!
Tv show look makes it seem less authentic imo.
Before watching this, my prediction is that the answer will either be "It depends" or "Maybe"
He’s not Tom
Turns out it was a "yes it is legal but people might try to challenge it."
boy I bet you were surprised
@@azuarc I actually was. It's kind of rare to get as straightforward an answer as he gave for this one. Though he did leave some wiggle room depending on if the courts uphold the most recent precedent or backtrack to an older one.
@@BleydTorvall i mean this also has so much precedent
Why can one get a religious exemption--why does someone religious rights (as a member of a group) weigh more than my individual rights?
under this current administration, you don't have any rights.
Well a group of Catholic medical professionals is trying to fight the vaccine mandate in New York City arguing it's against their religion.
The irony though: THE POPE HAS BEEN TELLING CATHOLICS TO GET VACCINATED FOR MONTHS. He said they have a moral obligation to do so.
@@shinjig there are religious and medical exemptions, they just have to be legitimate
I've been leaning away from the government mandate for vaccine shots (I have both my shots) but I enjoyed watching your video, it's good to have someone go over what this could all mean without being bogged down by frenzy and such.
Soon they would have required you to get the 3rd shot and later the 4th, 5th, and so on. Thankfully the 5th Circuit said no
@@sirmayse1545 ya for a shot that loses efficacy over time you can tell this mandate isn't for anyone's benefit but governments.
@@russelljordan8864 - and the stockholders.
@@russelljordan8864 every shot loses efficiency over time, the flu shot being the worst culprit. There's a new formula every year due to the influenza virus' rapid mutation patterns
How is it a Vax if you have to keep boosting it? And if they are effective in protecting those vax'd then why do vax'd people care if anyone else is vax'd or not. Awaken w/ JP did a life vest bit that puts it all in perspective, shows the ridiculousness that has manifested through people's ignorance of the subject matter at hand.
Nice transition to the sponsor! Logical & smooth.
How are people feeling about the new side shots that they mix into the videos? I find them a bit distracting. I feel like that kind of shot works well for an inspirational speech, but losing the direct eye contact of the front shot makes it harder to follow along when he is explaining things.
i really don't like the lack of eye contact when being spoken to
Nobody cares
I find that one moving shot to be distracting except when used for a purpose. I don't mind not having eye contact for a bit, though. In normal conversation, you break eye contact every once in a while or it feels too intense.
@@ZipplyZane Yeah, good point. Usually when there is an info graphic or quotes, or some footage that feels like a good way to break eye contact.
I found the sudden lack of eye contact to be disconcerting. I'd rather keep the front and center view.
I know I’m basically a child but when you said “duty clause” I laughed out loud.
What a crappy reaction... 🙃
Childish sense of humor, perhaps, but you're not throwing a temper tantrum over a shot so...
@@dynamicworlds1 sorry, I forgot to add the *pun* *pun* *pun* to clarify that I made a dad joke...
@@jeffdiamond486 wasn't referring to you, just in case that wasn't clear. 😉
@@dynamicworlds1 🤣🤣🤣🤣
There is a huge leap made in this video that discredits the entire first argument. The decision of Jacobson v Mass. applied to *state* governments. The question is whether or not the *federal* government, much less the President has this same power. Of course states have this power, the constitution never denies it of them. That same idea does not apply to the federal government, as Devin himself acknowledges from 4:58 - 5:14.
Just because the constitution doesn’t *prohibit* the federal government from doing something doesn’t mean it has the delegated authority to do it. Just read the ratifying conventions, Federalist 45, or simply the 10th Amendment. The qualifier for federal authority is not “does the constitution prohibit this?”. It is “does the constitution give this power?”. Devin never answers this question.
There is a huge leap you took, assuming Legal Eagle is an honest lawyer and not just propaganda grifter who has been boosted by youtube because of his politics.
@@tophan5146 Well, you are 100% correct in that assessment Lol. It just pains me to see how many people wholeheartedly trust Devin's legal analyses to be genuine and "unbiased" and never take a second to question his logic or intentions.
Thanks for covering this. These videos are super informative.
Please don't keep the spinning camera angle. It greatly draws focus to the visuals of your set and your person. And while you have a good-looking set and person, I don't believe these are what you're wanting to emphasize. You are a great speaker and you're very good at engaging people with your body language and hand gestures. I think the straight-ahead camera angle does a better service at capturing this, and honestly I think the spinning actively disrupts those abilities.
In summation, the spinning draws focus to unimportant things and away from important things. And I think you should stop using it.
Thanks for your great, informative videos and for the exceptional, professional delivery of them, and I hope this is helpful to you in the service of continuing your great work.
u mush have alot of videos and alot of views and alooot of likes to tell him how to make his video right :)
I'm not a huge fan of it. I like that he's experimenting but I would prefer less on the showmanship and focal disruption and more on the graphics, stats, etc of the topic at hand. Although those are already quite good quality.
@@LureModulesSandiego production and criticism are two different skillsets.
The DP loves himself. It was done for the DPs glory and not for the speakers effectiveness.
Isn’t this comment doing that exact same thing? Drawing focus away from the 17 minute video and onto the camera technique? Who cares.
If anyone can give some insight: How does one without a legal background research the legality of a new law or executive order? Say the President signs an Executive Order, what do I start to google to find precedent behind the specifics? How do people find relevant Supreme Court precedent?
If it were me, I’d start by reading the justices’ reasonings and descents (if it’s a SCOTUS case, obviously). Usually that’s where they’ll reference relevant cases or precedents. Generally I only follow this sort of thing when it’s in the news, and usually said news explains the legality of it. People go to law school to decide if something like this is legal or not. That’s why there’s lawyers. If anybody could do it, there wouldn’t be law school lol.
I just try to google the law and see what I can come up with. It's very hard to create an exhaustive list of what is and isn't possible though without proper training.
Researching specific Supreme Court precedents is a research skill I lack but I imagine is something that has to be learned through practice which is something people who went to law school did. For a layman I’d say finding legal articles and blogs summarizing it is a good jumping off point, not to take what they say as gospel but use them as research shorthand to look at their sources
@@vogelaccount5902 This was a really helpful summary, thank you!
@@vogelaccount5902 Thanks!
My employer is also fighting these regulations. One of the arguments they are making is that OSHA is not appropriate to regulate my company’s industry, as we already have our own more specific regulatory body (the FMCSA). I would be interested in your thoughts on this arguement.
I have heard that in many States, OSHA is no longer enforcing these mandates.
@@CerealDust-nStuff That’s a shame. I have a right to be safe in my workplace from people bringing a disease that could kill my family or myself.
@@amandahammond2691 - Except vaccines don't work.
@@CerealDust-nStuff That’s why you have polio, right?
@@amandahammond2691 - Bad argument. Besides this is not a vaccine.
Finally. A topic like this and the lawyer didn't say - "It depends."
You’re right he just gave an “it’s complicated”
@@MattcraftMSTR Are you dumb? He said a definitive answer and gave like 10 min of proof.
@@christianreyna5270 yes and then proceeded to provide a ton of exceptions to the mandate and reasons that could make it illegal
@@MattcraftMSTR Yes which means it's NOT illegal under current law, which is the entire point. Pretty much anything could be made illegal if it goes through the proper legal process.
it's really weird how the five of us all watched entirely different youtube videos before commenting on this one
Do you ever feel like you've had to learn way too much about constitutional law in the last 5 years?
Not really. I wish they would have taught me this shit in high school rather than pretending to memorize the names of foreign countries.
At least as an adult education can be more conversational and practical rather than memorization and tests.
Kind of pointless, considering Politicians seem to be taking the Constitution as a suggestion these days and only when it benefits them _against_ their opposition.
@@psylock524 Replace two years of a foreign language with two years of civics, change my mind.
When the other 6 ETSs where challenged were they enforced while being challenged? I wish you had provided more information about what is likely to happen when the storm of legal cases to block this starts.
I believe that the Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) are immediately in effect once they have been published in the Federal Register. Thus, they are applicable and theoretically enforceable while they are being challenged. Note that while Biden issued an executive order concerning federal employees and contractors, he simply told the head of OSHA to promulgate the ETS. This hopefully precludes finding some Trump appointee in Texas who will enjoin the who shebang. Challenges to the ETS will be heard by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
I think that this is correct.
@@hisownfool1I wish I knew more about the logic or rules of injunctions. It’s just whatever the judge feels like doing?
@@3ractnodi it’s not supposed to be, but it’s hard not to think that sometimes. Injunctions are supposed to prevent an irreparable legal harm and the judge must follow existing law. That doesn’t always happen.
@@3ractnodi Yeah pretty much it just what they feel like. I'm not sure if this would be classified as a preliminary injunction as much as a temporary stay (I have no idea what an EO falls under), but you can't have it fast AND thorough. You want a decision quickly it needs to be from 1 person, and it's *supposed* to be only if there is "irreparable harm" being caused by this in the interim while the case is going on.
So it is entirely possible a judge decides this is classified as irreparable harm.
Lots of things are just what the judge feels like, though. Whether evidence is exculpatory, whether an appeal has a just foundation, whether to grant subpoenas and what-not. They make lots of decisions that are solely based on their perspective.
No. The courts put in place temporary and then permanent orders blocking enforcement
off topic but you look like president Lincoln without his beard lol
Objection - "contractors" are by definition independent and not subject to direction by the contracting agency. Just as in the private sector, if the government wants to exercise control over the contractor outside of completion of the job; the government needs to make those contractors into statutory employees.
Objection - Jacobsen v Massachusetts is not relevant to the federal question. The 10th Amendment sets governing powers significantly broader than it does to federal powers; as such, the Massachusetts State has authority and power not granted to the federal government.
Objection - HIPAA protections with regard to medical record privacy is governed and overseen by the OCR; therefore, OSHA authority is explicitly and undeniably denied with regard to demanding medical documentation of employee vaccination status.
So doing some mental math, the Procurement Act passed in the 40s likely was related to the big World War that was going on at that time, at least in the first half of the 40s. I can definitely see Congress passing a law under those conditions that gave the Federal Government broad powers to combat fraud and get the best deals from contractors.
Posting something like this takes guts Mr Eagle, I’d take my hat off to you if I were wearing one. Whooo boy, this comment section will be a dumpster fire. Stay safe and get vaccinated y’all!
I'm kinda surprised he left the comment section open on this one. He didn't on the Texas abortion bill vid last week...
I’m with ya buddy. I can’t wait for the bozos to line up
@@TheDarthbinky was it closed from the start or did it get really heated and he had to close it? I didn’t see it for a while so it was closed when I got there
@@ZorillaMyrid181 I think it was closed from the start but I don't know for sure. I watched it maybe an hour or so after he posted it and it was already closed.
@@TheDarthbinky It was closed when it came out.
I got to say, I love how perfectly you walk the line between picking a side in extremely dividing topics like this. You stay extremely neutral which is very appreciated
There is no division on the topic of vaccines. One is either right or wrong, there is no gray area here. And just in case you are wondering, not getting vaccinated is obviously wrong.
@@danielduncan6806 ok dude
@@nin29nin Weird. I see plenty of video evidence he is approximately 50% right-sided.
He is a blatant leftist.
@Tim Blaine but so is willingly disregarding others safety and we do this for children all the time
Hey @LegalEagle, could you do a video on the insular cases and the US territories?
I don’t consider myself educated on medical or legal matters so I can’t provide much to the conversation. But what I can appreciate is the cinematography of this video! Great improvement to over all video quality.
"The rights of the individual 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.**"
A lot of people in this country clearly missed this memo. The idea that you are 'free' does not mean you can just do whatever you want with no regard to the well being of others. It's really not that hard to understand from a legal or moral standpoint.
But muh freedoms /s
How does not being vaccinated harm other people? It's only dangerous to yourself.
@@canoshizrocks Being vaccinated can also contribute to reducing the SPREAD of the disease for which the vaccination is fighting against.
Vaccines don't just help yourself, they also help others.
@@canoshizrocks herd immunity for people who CAN'T get it, and to stop the virus from mutating into a form which the Vaccine doesn't work on.
@Napoléon Bonaparte I Yeah you should read what he was talking about when he said that. That quote was about rich people bribing the government and preventing it from doing its job.
I wonder what would happen in OSHA vs Weyland-Yutani intentional xenomorph collection and experimentation cases would be like.
Given WY’s remarkably poor record of keeping them contained, I imagine OSHA would shut them down.