Well, now this is interesting.....Looks like Florida may have gotten it's way.

[kelleherdl]

On 7/24/2021 at 6:09 PM, chengkp75 said:

What you are missing, my friend, is exactly what I predicted would happen.  To quote the yahoo article:  "CDC also said cruise ships not following its order must abide by other requirements including "reporting of individual cases of illness or death and ship inspections and sanitary measures to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases."

 

This means that cruise ships that are not following the CSO requirements will fall back on standard practice for ships entering the US, and will be subject to inspection and health surveys of passengers and crew, every time they enter the US.  There is no way a judge can stop this, as this is what is precisely spelled out in the Public Health Act.

 

Do you not find that the CDC has harmed its case even further by doing the late night dance of ‘arbitrary and capricious’ changing of its ‘rules’ again.  

[harkinmr]

12 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

Sorry, under our Constitution that is not how it works.  Agencies have NO POWER to do anything without Congress giving it to them.  That is the basis for the lawsuit.

It’s never a good idea to selectively quote from a post or fail to reflect context. It just makes your response appear misguided.  I never said that government agencies had inherent powers. They are given their regulatory powers pursuant to legislation, as in this case with the CDC. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/Mask-Order-CDC_GMTF_01-29-21-p.pdf

 

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

Do you not find that the CDC has harmed its case even further by doing the late night dance of ‘arbitrary and capricious’ changing of its ‘rules’ again.  

No, because this is what the judge stated in his ruling, that the CDC was strictly limited to the language of the PHA, and that is what they are going to do.  The judge said that anything other than what is specified in the PHA is "overreach", so they are following his instructions.  This is an unintended consequence of the judge's opinion and ruling.

 

And, in the context of your response to another poster, the PHA gives the USPHS the authority to promulgate regulations regarding the inspection and quarantine of vessels entering the US.  So, that is the Congressional authorization for the regulations.  The CDC is one agency of the USPHS.

Edited July 26, 2021 by chengkp75

[ontheweb]

28 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

Do you not find that the CDC has harmed its case even further by doing the late night dance of ‘arbitrary and capricious’ changing of its ‘rules’ again.  

No, they did not change their rules; they only abided by what the judge had said they could do. Sometimes you should beware of getting what you want.

[HappyCamper49]

I never understood how FL could mandate what cruise ships could do and not do.  The FL governor mandated FL businesses could not mandate masks and vaccination proof.  The cruise lines are not REGISTERED FLORIDA BUSINESSES, so to speak.  They are all registered in foreign countries.

[Daniel A]

8 hours ago, HappyCamper49 said:

I never understood how FL could mandate what cruise ships could do and not do.  The FL governor mandated FL businesses could not mandate masks and vaccination proof.  The cruise lines are not REGISTERED FLORIDA BUSINESSES, so to speak.  They are all registered in foreign countries.

This is directly from the Florida law in question:

"A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery"

 

Florida law s. 768.38 reads: "“Business entity” has the same meaning as provided in s. 606.03."

 

Florida defines what businesses are covered by Florida Law here: "606.03 “Business entity” means any form of corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, joint venture, business trust, or sole proprietorship that conducts business in this state."

 

So, the Florida law is not limited to only businesses "registered" in Florida, it covers any business operations taking place within the state.  

 

It appears you are a resident of North Carolina.  Don't you think the State of North Carolina can regulate how companies do business in NC?  Wal-Mart is incorporated in Delaware and has its corporate HQ in Arkansas.  Does that mean Wal-Mart is immune from North Carolina consumer protection laws?  

 

When you purchase drinks on board while the ship is still in Port Everglades, you get charged Florida sales tax.  Once at sea beyond the Florida state border there is no sales tax due since the business transaction took place outside of the State of Florida.

 

That is the best way I can explain how Florida laws and regulations would apply to cruise ships operating out of Florida.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Daniel A

[Tampa Girl]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

This is directly from the Florida law in question:

"A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery"

 

Florida law s. 768.38 reads: "“Business entity” has the same meaning as provided in s. 606.03."

 

Florida defines what businesses are covered by Florida Law here: "606.03 “Business entity” means any form of corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, joint venture, business trust, or sole proprietorship that conducts business in this state."

 

So, the Florida law is not limited to only businesses "registered" in Florida, it covers any business operations taking place within the state.  

 

It appears you are a resident of North Carolina.  Don't you think the State of North Carolina can regulate how companies do business in NC?  Wal-Mart is incorporated in Delaware and has its corporate HQ in Arkansas.  Does that mean Wal-Mart is immune from North Carolina consumer protection laws?  

 

When you purchase drinks on board while the ship is still in Port Everglades, you get charged Florida sales tax.  Once at sea beyond the Florida state border there is no sales tax due since the business transaction took place outside of the State of Florida.

 

That is the best way I can explain how Florida laws and regulations would apply to cruise ships operating out of Florida.

 

I do question, however, whether Florida law will pass US. constitutional challenges.  The cruise ships are basically ignoring DeSantis and are going around him.  The environment for the past 17 months has been one of a "health emergency", and the S.Ct. has upheld the right of certain businesses and federal offices to limit access or require vaccinations during such periods.  

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

I do question, however, whether Florida law will pass US. constitutional challenges.  The cruise ships are basically ignoring DeSantis and are going around him.  The environment for the past 17 months has been one of a "health emergency", and the S.Ct. has upheld the right of certain businesses and federal offices to limit access or require vaccinations during such periods.  

And the businesses in question (the cruise lines) deal with international travel, something that falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

[Tampa Girl]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And the businesses in question (the cruise lines) deal with international travel, something that falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

 

That, too.  Actually, no one seems to be listening to our governor, and many businesses are simply ignoring his edicts.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

That, too.  Actually, no one seems to be listening to our governor, and many businesses are simply ignoring his edicts.

Right, even Disney is not listening. And he is not going to take on Disney, is he?😉

[wdw1972]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Right, even Disney is not listening. And he is not going to take on Disney, is he?😉

There's nothing to prohibit Disney from requiring their cast (employees) to be vaccinated.  They just can't require it of guests.  

 

Sue/wdw1972

[ontheweb]

2 minutes ago, wdw1972 said:

There's nothing to prohibit Disney from requiring their cast (employees) to be vaccinated.  They just can't require it of guests.  

 

Sue/wdw1972

They can't require it of guests? You really believe that?

 

Disney World and Disneyland to require parkgoers to wear masks indoors (cnbc.com)

 

They are ignoring the governor of Florida!

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

That, too.  Actually, no one seems to be listening to our governor, and many businesses are simply ignoring his edicts.

You do realize that this is a state law properly passed by your elected representatives and in full force?  The Executive orders expired a month ago when the law took effect.

[wdw1972]

14 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

They can't require it of guests? You really believe that?

 

Disney World and Disneyland to require parkgoers to wear masks indoors (cnbc.com)

 

They are ignoring the governor of Florida!

Sorry - I thought you were talking about vaccines.  Private businesses can require patrons to wear masks.  Government entities (counties, cities) cannot.  And it's true the executive order is a thing of the past, but there's a law that replaced it, making it permanent 😞

 

Sue

[Daniel A]

5 minutes ago, wdw1972 said:

Sorry - I thought you were talking about vaccines.  Private businesses can require patrons to wear masks.  Government entities (counties, cities) cannot.  And it's true the executive order is a thing of the past, but there's a law that replaced it, making it permanent 😞

 

Sue

Apparently, some people don't understand the difference between wearing a mask or getting vaccinated  😒

[chengkp75]

14 hours ago, Daniel A said:

You do realize that this is a state law properly passed by your elected representatives and in full force?  The Executive orders expired a month ago when the law took effect.

And, you do realize that many legal experts state this is unconstitutional, and the law has not been challenged in court.  Just because a law is passed by "elected representatives" does not make it "legal".

[JRG]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Just because a law is passed by "elected representatives" does not make it "legal".

 

???

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

And, you do realize that many legal experts state this is unconstitutional, and the law has not been challenged in court.  Just because a law is passed by "elected representatives" does not make it "legal".

My post was in response to another poster's description of the law as being an 'edict' from the governor.   "no one seems to be listening to our governor, and many businesses are simply ignoring his edicts."  The point being this ban is not an edict from one person, it was legitimately made into law by the Florida Legislature.

 

The law is being challenged by NCLH in the Southern District.  The legal system is designed to be an adversarial system, thus, one can always find legal experts taking diametrically different positions on any matter.  IIRC, the two main points NCLH made was that the law violated the preemption clause because the Florida law conflicted with the requirements of the CSO.  After the issuance of the injunction, that constitutional challenge lost its steam.  The other constitutional issue raised was that it violates the dormant commerce clause.  As I understand the dormant commerce clause, it relates to interstate commerce restrictions.  You probably know better than me, does NCLH participate in interstate commerce?  I thought the PVSA prohibits NCLH from participating in interstate commerce (except the Seattle to Alaska cruises this year.)  That case will wind on, but until a Federal judge says otherwise, the Florida law is legal.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Daniel A

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

The other constitutional issue raised was that it violates the dormant commerce clause.  As I understand the dormant commerce clause, it relates to interstate commerce restrictions. 

I should have said "successfully survived" a challenge in court.  I've forgotten what exactly was in the NCL suit, but the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution reserves for the federal government the power to “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."  Given that the cruise ships are not US flag, they then are international commerce, and therefore "commerce with foreign nations".

 

I thought the NCL suit also addressed the fact that the state had no right to tell a business whether they could deny service to anyone, if that denial of service is uniformly applied, and does not impact solely a "protected class".  Since Florida failed to name unvaccinated persons as a protected class (as they could have done), according to federal law they cannot deny a business the right to deny service to anyone they wish.

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I should have said "successfully survived" a challenge in court.  I've forgotten what exactly was in the NCL suit, but the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution reserves for the federal government the power to “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."  Given that the cruise ships are not US flag, they then are international commerce, and therefore "commerce with foreign nations".

 

I thought the NCL suit also addressed the fact that the state had no right to tell a business whether they could deny service to anyone, if that denial of service is uniformly applied, and does not impact solely a "protected class".  Since Florida failed to name unvaccinated persons as a protected class (as they could have done), according to federal law they cannot deny a business the right to deny service to anyone they wish.

You raise a couple of interesting points.  The NCLH court filing specifically cited the 'Dormant Commerce Clause' and I don't recall NCLH raising the international (foreign commerce) issue so I'm not altogether too sure that the court would take note of the Foreign Commerce Clause if NCLH didn't raise it in the first place.

 

Whatever happens it will be very interesting.  (I believe I have mentioned this before, that I am fully in favor of giving cruise lines the ability to require proof of vaccination, but that will probably take an amendment to the law exempting 'non-essential' businesses and services.)

[ontheweb]

17 hours ago, wdw1972 said:

Sorry - I thought you were talking about vaccines.  Private businesses can require patrons to wear masks.  Government entities (counties, cities) cannot.  And it's true the executive order is a thing of the past, but there's a law that replaced it, making it permanent 😞

 

Sue

And is it not true that your governor has railed against mask mandates when they have been proposed by mayors and school boards? Yet, he says nothing when Disney requires masks for all.

 

As for asking for vaccine proof, the cruise lines somehow have been able to <wink, wink> find a way to get around his  $5000 fines for asking while trying their best to get to 95%vaccinated.

[Tampa Girl]

18 hours ago, Daniel A said:

You do realize that this is a state law properly passed by your elected representatives and in full force?  The Executive orders expired a month ago when the law took effect.

 

The law resulted from the governor's "edict" and it involved vax "passports, and our legislature promptly enacted it.  He has since issued another "edict", stating that there will be no mask mandate, but that is being ignored by businesses and some state offices.

[Nymich]

 Let's cruise!

Edited August 2, 2021 by Nymich

[JRG]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I should have said "successfully survived" a challenge in court.  I've forgotten what exactly was in the NCL suit, but the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution reserves for the federal government the power to “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."  Given that the cruise ships are not US flag, they then are international commerce, and therefore "commerce with foreign nations"

 

Redlining is mine.

 

As I interpret this Clause,  I am understanding that the Fed can "Reserve" the power,   but they do not have to enforce it.   So it is not a defensible argument here but I will listen.

 

I interpret the law to say that they have the right to enforce but enforcement it is not always a requirement and it may not be required here.   

 

On a grander scale,

Something injurious may or may not have happened to Florida, other states and the Cruiselines and it can be quantified.

  

If the CDC were a corporation they would be booking a Contingent Liability and preparing the necessary disclosure for the financial statements.

 

 

[mexico8]

I think you have to be a lawyer to try to follow most of these posts.   I am totally confused about Florida and being able to take a cruise from there in November with HAL.   Hoping it's clearer in the next couple of weeks before we have to make our final payment in mid-

August.   Won't be taking the cruise if all passengers and crew are not vaccinated and have to show proof.