Ports in Florida. Florida law.
The CDC makes recommendations it is not an enforcement agency.
Take it up with the Court of Appeals. They agree.
Interstate commerce.
Supercedes state law…as codified in the Constitution.
And like I said…let’s see what side Desantis comes down on regarding the rules RC itself has put in place now that its hands have been tied.
It would seem to me to be a very strange decision to go on a cruise ship and be confined to your cabin because you have not been vaccinated.
The CDC is not an enforcement agency. That, I believe, is where you are missing the crux of the lawsuit.
The court concluded the CDC’s rules on the cruise industry “are likely unconstitutional and overstepping their legal authority.”
"The importance of this case extends beyond the cruise industry. From here on out a federal bureau will be on thin legal and constitutional ice if and when it attempts to exercise such sweeping authority that is not explicitly delineated by law,” he added.
That wasn’t what the post was about. It was about Florida telling the private cruise lines that they could not require passengers to have vaccines to be able to book their services.
And BTW last I could tell it was the cruise lines now suing Florida about their restriction.
WW
What the Florida law does is mandate that cruise lines cannot have their own safety protocols. The cruise lines are suing Florida on the state restrictions.
WW
It is illegal to require vaccine passports in Florida.
If they want to move their ports out of Florida, they are free to do so.
That is what the law suit is about. Whether Florida can ban cruise lines from seeing to passenger safety by telling cruise lines to ignore the vaccination status of it’s passengers.
Whether the law passed by Florida is illegal or not.
As to moving their ports? You are correct, but that’s not what Florida lawmakers and the tourist industry want. They want the business but without one key aspect of passenger safety.
WW
So, again -
Big government overriding the will of private business is a good thing now?
No, what he’s fighting for is the power to regulate private businesses and prevent them from taking the safety and business precautions that they believe are necessary.
What he is fighting against are vaccine passports. Should you only be able to fly if you are vaccinated?
Yes. Do you understand what “vaccine passports” are?
I understand that you’ve found a scary buzzword, but I’m not sure if you understand what it means.
I would be much more comfortable getting on a plane knowing that everyone else on it was vaccinated as well.
So yes.
Proof of vaccination or however you’d like to phrase it.
And this is about overreach on the part of the CDC which has no regulatory authority.
Then, if this is challenged again and it is a win that may just happen. Hard to say at this point.
1 Like
No, it isn’t. I understand that’s the part you’re more comfortable opposing - but that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about the law DeSantis passed that makes it illegal for private companies to choose to require proof of vaccination.
The CDC has nothing to do with that.
Then why did the court rule that the CDC overstepped their authority?
1 Like
The fact that the court ruled the CDC overstepped their authority is irrelevant to what I’m talking about.
You keep deflecting to the CDC because it’s easier for you to justify your argument when the federal government is the “bad guy”. I understand that, and it’s fine.
But I’m not talking about the CDC - I’m talking about DeSantis’ law.
Do you think DeSantis overstepped his bounds, when he made it illegal for private companies to make their own decisions regarding the safety of their customers?
It is relevant to what I am talking about.
I think that with any law that has passed there are going to be people who are happy and unhappy with it.
For the most part I agree with him on passing the law.
I don’t agree with discriminating against those who have not been vaccinated.
2 Likes
It is only relevant to your attempt to deflect.
Ok, so you support the government passing onerous regulations on private businesses - as long as it’s either (1) someone on your side doing the regulating; or (2) you argee with the end goal.
Deleted, no reason to have to people pointing out the same thing.
WW
I’m not deflecting. I am looking at what the court ruled.
Already answered.
