Started By
Message
re: Talked to a good TRUSTED friend, LSU coaching search
Posted on 10/26/21 at 10:20 pm to TideWarrior
Posted on 10/26/21 at 10:20 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
Does this mean the Gov nor the state has direct control of the UA system?
It absolutely does.
0
Posted on 10/26/21 at 10:22 pm to clay3482
quote:
"Clay, you will never guess what I just heard today about LSUs coaching search. Harsin, is very mad about the Covid Requirements at AU and sent word through his agent that he would be open to the LSU AD who placed value on personal choice, and not mandates."
Your source is a fricking idiot because Louisiana is less conservative than Alabama and our Governor is against mandates while theirs isn't.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 5:24 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
No. They're not federal contractors.
On what grounds are you claiming the Universities are not federal contractors.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 6:14 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
No. They're not federal contractors. I guess I should have been more clear about what I'm saying is nonsense.
One of the other posters already addressed that notion. All of them do millions if not hundreds of millions in federal contract work. They’re absolutely covered.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 6:21 am to TideWarrior
quote:
They have stated they will follow the federal mandate.
Of course they will. Executive branch state agencies will too if the lawsuits fail. I don’t mean to imply otherwise.
As long as the Biden executive order remains in effect and hasn’t been restrained by the courts they are legally bound to comply or risk those contracts. If it gets either paused or shot down by the court system then Ivey’s order becomes the governing one and they will be legally bound to follow it and not impose a mandate.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 6:26 am to JustGetItRight
We have a king, not a president.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 6:49 am to JustGetItRight
Is weird to assume that if someone refuses to comment on whether or not they are vaccinated means that they are not.
I'm hoping Golding is antivax though.
I'm hoping Golding is antivax though.
This post was edited on 10/27/21 at 6:52 am
Posted on 10/27/21 at 7:03 am to The Spleen
Posted on 10/27/21 at 7:48 am to TideWarrior
Governor Anti finds out who came up with said policy and lets them know that if one single employee is fired then they go with them same day same time for insubordination. Use the George Corley Wallace playbook.
SJW's run wild because no one does anything to them, there are no consequences for their actions. They are like spoiled brat kids. Let them face the heat, and they will wilt.
If they fire anyone, fire them. If the campus Marxists protest, fire them too.
Problem solved.
SJW's run wild because no one does anything to them, there are no consequences for their actions. They are like spoiled brat kids. Let them face the heat, and they will wilt.
If they fire anyone, fire them. If the campus Marxists protest, fire them too.
Problem solved.
This post was edited on 10/27/21 at 7:56 am
Posted on 10/27/21 at 8:06 am to Robot Santa
quote:
However, Ivey’s executive order would not impact those plans announced by the University of Alabama System and Auburn University to require employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19 by Dec. 8. The universities were created by the Alabama Constitution and are under the management and control of a board of trustees.
So after reading I see the Governor is on the Board of Trustees but can not make any changes or order the University systems to comply as per the State Constitution of Alabama. The Board of Trustees would have to vote and gain the necessary votes to do so.
Now I understand why the article along with several other articles clearly state that the executive order issued by Ivey last Friday has no impact on the University system in Alabama. The universities all have stated they will comply with the federal mandate and they will not work with the state to stop the mandate or help the state sue the government for what Ivey and the state AG believe is an over reach in power by the federal government.
So according to the State Constitution the university systems is it own governing entity with those powers granted to it by the state of Alabama.
This post was edited on 10/27/21 at 8:16 am
Posted on 10/27/21 at 8:09 am to antibarner
quote:
Governor Anti finds out who came up with said policy and lets them know that if one single employee is fired then they go with them same day same time for insubordination. Use the George Corley Wallace playbook.
Except the Gov does not have that power according the to state Constitution based on how the University systems is setup and how it is governed.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 8:36 am to TideWarrior
You're right that the Governor can't hire/fire/generally direct the day to day operations of the universities.
She and the legislature, however, do control high level state policy.
If the courts toss the Biden executive order and either AU or UA try to enforce one on their own, you can bet the farm that the executive and legislative actions taken against them will be utterly devastating.
She and the legislature, however, do control high level state policy.
If the courts toss the Biden executive order and either AU or UA try to enforce one on their own, you can bet the farm that the executive and legislative actions taken against them will be utterly devastating.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 8:55 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
You're right that the Governor can't hire/fire/generally direct the day to day operations of the universities.
It goes beyond day to day as the Board of Trustees have complete control of what takes place on the campuses. Even if the state legislature proposes something it has to be approved by the Board or will not happen.
quote:
If the courts toss the Biden executive order
Only is the federal courts because the state court will have no power in this situation.
quote:
either AU or UA try to enforce one on their own
But currently neither are trying just abiding by the federal mandate.
quote:
the executive and legislative actions taken against them will be utterly devastating.
I am not sure what actions they can take. Both the executive and legislative branches were created under the state constitution which also created the university systems. All three entities have powered issued by the constitution and all three are protected by the same constitution.
Somewhat ironic if that were to happen as to levy such actions would be an over reach by the Governor as that state constitution clearly states the power the university systems are granted and therefore any interference by the Governor or the state legislature would be an over reach and abuse of power.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 9:26 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Only is the federal courts because the state court will have no power in this situation
Agreed. This is a federal courts issue alone.
quote:
But currently neither are trying just abiding by the federal mandate.
Agreed again. That's why any anger directed at either UA or AU is misplaced.
quote:
It goes beyond day to day as the Board of Trustees have complete control of what takes place on the campuses. Even if the state legislature proposes something it has to be approved by the Board or will not happen.
No, it doesn't. The BoD cannot override state law period. A great example is the "vaccine passport" issue. The Alabama legislature specifically stated that colleges and universities in the state cannot require students to provide proof of vaccination from Covid-19 as a condition of attendance. Some institutions created a 'work around' of requiring regular negative tests OR proof of vaccination but not one court challenge was attempted because it was moot. It took nothing more than a letter from the Attorney General to trigger UAB rescinding their very brief vaccine requirement.
Similarly, a few years back when Alabama relaxed it's gun laws there was intense and ultimately successful lobbying on the part of public universities to exempt them from the new statues because they didn't want to lose the right to restrict weapons on campus. There was no assertion that the legislature didn't have the right to take the action, they simply begged them not to do so.
If the legislature were to pass an act that stated (absent any federal requirement) "no public university shall require proof of Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of employment" that would be the full end of the discussion. A BoD could no more override that law than they could override the state murder statute.
But, in the end, the entire issue depends on what happens with the Biden executive order in federal court. The only prediction I'll make about how that turns out is that the states suing will be successful in getting a temporary restraining order that will make the impact on any college coach in Alabama be an issue for the 2022 season.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 10:06 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
But, in the end, the entire issue depends on what happens with the Biden executive order in federal court. The only prediction I'll make about how that turns out is that the states suing will be successful in getting a temporary restraining order that will make the impact on any college coach in Alabama be an issue for the 2022 season.
Any TRO will be short lived. The courts will fast track the case, if it even gets that far. The Supreme Court already refused to even take up a case challenging the mandate at Indiana University, and there is plenty of precedence stating these mandates are legal.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 10:21 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
No, it doesn't. The BoD cannot override state law period.
In this case they are and I showed that earlier. That the executive order by Ivey will not affect the universities that are mandating it.
quote:
However, Ivey’s executive order would not impact those plans announced by the University of Alabama System and Auburn University to require employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19 by Dec. 8. The universities were created by the Alabama Constitution and are under the management and control of a board of trustees.
That is from the article that came out yesterday
quote:
It took nothing more than a letter from the Attorney General to trigger UAB rescinding their very brief vaccine requirement.
Except no longer true. That link is from September 17th and as of October 22nd(Friday) they are now requiring it as mandated by the Federal government.
quote:
If the legislature were to pass an act that stated (absent any federal requirement) "no public university shall require proof of Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of employment" that would be the full end of the discussion.
This I do agree with but as you mentioned as long as the federal mandate is there it will not matter.
quote:
But, in the end, the entire issue depends on what happens with the Biden executive order in federal court. The only prediction I'll make about how that turns out is that the states suing will be successful in getting a temporary restraining order that will make the impact on any college coach in Alabama be an issue for the 2022 season.
The problem with that is they may be able to help a coach out or even staff by getting a temporary order preventing them from getting fired while the courts may or may not deal with it, but the issue is the funding from the government, especially those slated for contracts including DARPA and whatnot will be paused as well. The federal government has done that before which is a lot bigger deal for a college then retaining their head football coach.
What wold you do? Fight it and get a temp order to keep you HC for the season or let him go to maintain a $200million cash flow on contracts rolling in. I think that should be an easy answer.
This post was edited on 10/27/21 at 10:22 am
Posted on 10/27/21 at 10:30 am to The Spleen
quote:
and there is plenty of precedence stating these mandates are legal.
Unless there's some kind of nuanced police powers argument I haven't considered I don't see any way Biden loses on this. The federal government can set standards and conditions for the entities it does business with as long as those standards and conditions aren't contrary to federal law, and unvaccinated isn't a protected class. The supremacy clause applies to EOs as long as the EO isn't unconstitutional. I just don't see a good argument for why this is illegal.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 10:44 am to Robot Santa
quote:
The supremacy clause applies to EOs as long as the EO isn't unconstitutional.
My unit was involved in rendition assignments. If that EO from Clinton was not unconstitutional than vaccination mandates will never be either.
Posted on 10/27/21 at 11:20 am to Robot Santa
quote:
Unless there's some kind of nuanced police powers argument I haven't considered I don't see any way Biden loses on this. The federal government can set standards and conditions for the entities it does business with as long as those standards and conditions aren't contrary to federal law, and unvaccinated isn't a protected class. The supremacy clause applies to EOs as long as the EO isn't unconstitutional. I just don't see a good argument for why this is illegal.
Again, up front, I don't know how it will play out but I'd imagine the argument is going to be about the boundaries of the EO.
(side note - EOs are the most abused tool in every presidential administration regardless of party)
The Federal government can 100% set standards but can a president unilaterally through executive order amend the qualifications of vendors and/or implement workplace safety requirements outside the normal rulemaking methods? They're going to argue that the authority to make the changes as he has proposed resides with the legislative branch or, at least, OSHA through their normal rule-making process.
That's the fundamental difference between this challenge and others that have been dismissed by the courts. Absent some state law otherwise, private employers, state and local governments, etc can certainly mandate vaccines. They won't challenge that at all - it's a losing argument. What they'll challenge is the way the rule was made.
Sometimes those challenges work, sometimes they don't.
Edited to add - Trump's attempts to strip federal funding from sanctuary cities via EO were stopped in court using this very tactic. Here's a quote from the ruling enjoining him:
“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,”
Pretty much fits this situation to a T.
This post was edited on 10/27/21 at 11:25 am
Posted on 10/27/21 at 11:49 am to TideWarrior
There is no federal law nor is there any state law. Biden's executive order can only apply to federal agencies. Corporations are using his "order" as cover to do what they really want to do anyhow. Ivey has much more authority over state universities and state agencies.
Page 2 of 3
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News