Oklahoma Attempts to Nullify Vax Mandate

11/17/2021

The Hill: Pentagon digs in on vaccine mandate for Oklahoma National Guard

"Austin announced in August that the coronavirus shot would be mandatory for all troops and in mid-September placed the mandate into effect, though the deadline to receive the inoculation varies by branch.

The National Guard’s deadline is June 30, but the Air Force and Army require guard airmen and troops to comply by Nov. 2 and Dec. 15, respectively, to allow them to be mobilized on federal orders.

The Oklahoma National Guard went rogue, however, when earlier this month it rejected the mandate after Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) unexpectedly ousted its previous head. In their place, Stitt appointed Army Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino to serve as the state’s adjutant general and National Guard commander. He then directed Mancino to pen a memo that stipulated no member of the Oklahoma National Guard will be required to get vaccinated."

Joshua E Kastenberg

11/18/2021 11:12:45 am

While I recognize that the issues in Stearns v. Woods and Perpich v. Secretary of Defense are different than those raised by the governor's decision, I wonder whether - in light of the anthrax vaccine courts-martial of the 1990s-early 2000s - and the inherent commander in chief authorities accepted by the Article III judiciary over the past century, this isn't going to be determined adversely as a matter of law against the governor. But of course, if it is determined adversely to the governor it may also mean that the Guard members who refused may also suffer from the governor and adjutant general's determination.

I am not commenting on the political or social/cultural nature of the governor's decision. It seems to me that an argument can be made for the following: "A major adversary attacks an island-based ally. The president decides the militarily must defend that island-based ally (an hopefully has the support of Congress). The quickest degree of military readiness is necessary to confront that adversary. The Guard is a critical part of the military. 10% of the Oklahoma Guard will not immediately available because it takes about a month or more to have two shots and achieve the degree of immunity determined as necessary by the DoD. And, that 10% may increase the danger of the health of other members of the unit."

I understand that while it is in state status, the Guard has a vastly different relationship to the commander in chief than the active force. But, it still has to meet readiness requirements.

I am not entering into an argument about civilians who opt out of getting a vaccine - but the military establishment is, and has, always been, a different matter.

Ever since Martin v. Mott, the Court has tended to side with the presidency over the states in regard to commander in chief power over the entire military establishment be it militia or Guard. Couple this with the Jacobson decision and I am hard pressed to see how this governor prevails. Of course, if I am in the military or political leadership of the potential adversary, I am delighted at the disfunction in the US democracy and this certainly adds to the disfunction. (I think the leader of the other potential adversary who has upped the bullying of the Ukraine is also delighted).

Comments are closed.

CAAFlog

Oklahoma Attempts to Nullify Vax Mandate

Categories

Archives