Image 01 Image 03

CDC Requires Masks on People on All Modes of Transportation, Including Rideshares

CDC Requires Masks on People on All Modes of Transportation, Including Rideshares

Did you think Biden’s admin would stick to planes, trains, and federal property?

To the shock of no one, President Joe Biden and the CDC skirted around his declaration of requiring masks on planes, trains, and federal property. Another order quietly came about on January 28th, which mentioned compliance “consistent with CDC guidelines and applicable law.”

So those who thought Biden would go farther were right. He just did it through the CDC, which requires masks in all modes of transportation. It went into effect this week.

From MarketWatch:

The rule “will protect Americans and provide confidence that we can once again travel safely even during this pandemic,” said Dr. Marty Cetron, director of CDC’s division of migration and quarantine, who signed the order.

The 11-page CDC order takes effect just before midnight on Monday night. It makes refusal to wear a mask a violation of federal law, enforced by the Transportation Security Administration and other federal, state and local authorities.

The rule applies to passengers on airplanes, trains, subways, buses, taxis and ride-shares. It says travelers must wear a mask that covers their nose and mouth while riding and while getting on and off rides. The order extends to waiting areas such as airports, train platforms and subway stations.

Airlines already require masks and have banned more than 2,000 passengers for refusing to wear one. Flight attendant unions have said a federal rule will make it easier for crews to enforce the requirement.

The order exempts children under 2 years of age and people with a disability that makes it unsafe to wear a mask. Airlines struggled with an exemption for safety and stopped allowing it. The CDC said transportation operators can require medical documentation.

Travelers will be allowed to remove masks while eating or drinking.

The modes of transportation include “an aircraft, train, road vehicle, vessel…or other means of transport, including military.”

Hidden in small print? “This includes rideshares meaning arrangements where passengers travel in a privately owned road vehicle driven by its owner in connection with a fee or service.”

Now let’s look at the exemptions. People who cannot wear masks now have to make it known why they cannot wear one. It is no one’s business why a person cannot wear a mask. What if it is anxiety? Do you have any idea what that could do to a person? Some might fear admitting anxiety as worse than wearing a mask. So they put on a mask and have an anxiety attack.

Or do we have to carry around cards stating our medical ailments?

Travelers can also remove a mask to eat, drink, or take medication. The CDC did not say how long a person can keep off the mask, which means it is up to those around the person. How about slow eaters? Do they have to put the mask back on between bites?

Or is the CDC fine with harassment? When will these people realize that we are not robots?

You must wear a particular mask, too. While these are more specific, there is still enough room open to interpretation.

It is never going to end. Never.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Friendly Grizzly | February 4, 2021 at 5:04 pm

And, what will the federales have in store for ride-share groups that agree to go maskless?

    I guess they’ll be outlaws. Interesting twist, now the outlaws are the guys without the masks.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | February 4, 2021 at 9:29 pm

    When the ride sharing groups are caught they will be fined an unspecified amount of money and jailed for an unspecified number of years (<–Yes that's right, years) for failure to wear a mask and endangering the public health.

Morning Sunshine | February 4, 2021 at 5:09 pm

I say again: this is not for safety. it is for muzzling. And for cutting the ties that bind us together; divide and conquer.

    No mask = Face Crime

    Wouldn’t be surprised if the next directive is duct tape firmly over the nose and mouth to eliminate any further risk of contamination.

    Fauci message for the day… wear, don’t wear, wear…. confusing

2smartforlibs | February 4, 2021 at 5:10 pm

Too many Morons are already driving around in makes and have caused several crashes around here.

“…all modes of transportation.” Intrastate is not subject to federal regulation, but state. Court cases anyone?

And what enforcement power does CDC possess? A blanket ‘justice dept.’ doesn’t cut it. It’s now up to Ralph the bus driver to police for proper masks? Sanji the cabbie to tsk, tsk your exposed nose?

#NotMyPresident #Not My Values #RESIST

    “Interstate Highways” ring a bell? federal mandate on a federally controlled road.

      Interstates are nationally funded but not very controlled (even the speed limits have only been limited by the national gov’t funding blackmail route). Driving on an interstate is NOT constitutionally governable, unless it involves actual commerce between states.

      Of course, “constitutionally” is sort of a pointless argument to the gov’t anymore.

      Noted. But I specifically referenced ‘intrastate’ modes.

    Yes. Under what authority do they publish this “mandate”? They don’t have authority over trains or planes (other bureaucracies do). They don’t have any authority over local transportation at all. Interstate buses would also be under another bureaucracy.

    Oh, that’s right, we just pretend to have a federal government operating under the Constitution.

SeiteiSouther | February 4, 2021 at 5:42 pm

Order noted and ignored.

Explain again why there was widespread acceptance of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. None of this should one as any surprise to anyone who who uses news sources other than CNN and MSNBC. Well, the PTB refused to allow the people any lawful means of contesting the election. So, we are entering the realm of civil unrest. Why do you think there was such a big push to defund the police and now castrate and hamstring the military?

    alaskabob in reply to n.n. | February 4, 2021 at 6:38 pm

    Stating the truth can become very unhealthy… for you. We are in the world of “settled truth” that makes one wish to be Galileo in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Progressive Church of the Earth.

Starting up the fabric presses today for a new and profitable line of “FUCK THE CDC” masks.

Chastain missed the big story here. This order, under existing law, makes it a federal crime punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, to violate the order.

They say that they hope they don’t have to use the criminal penalties but hold on to the threat. It’s a huge step up in federal involvement.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Rabel. | February 4, 2021 at 9:51 pm

    It’s a huge step up in federal involvement.

    And a huge violation of the Constitution as the CDC and federal government are trying to claim they have the authority to mandate masks for intrastate conveyance that doesn’t cross state lines as well as imposing mask requirements on Native American tribal lands.

    Both are illegal and unconstitutional acts on the part of the federal government CDC.

      well, they would be if the US was a nation of laws.

      it isn’t, anymore.

      It may be unconstitutional but it’s written into the law (including, specifically, intrastate enforcement).

      You can follow the cites in the CDC order to the particular legal authorizations.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Rabel. | February 6, 2021 at 8:49 am

        It may be unconstitutional but it’s written into the law (including, specifically, intrastate enforcement). You can follow the cites in the CDC order to the particular legal authorizations.

        Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Any “legal authorizations” that the federal government have produced or claim to justify unconstitutional actions are themselves unconstitutional and unenforceable and moot. The president doesn’t have authority to regulate intrastate travel under the Constitution. That is the purview of the state legislatures. Period.

This is just codifying what’s already ubiquitous. If you think this mask thing is ever going to end, look at any consumer catalog like Dr. Leonard’s or Heartland, or any online shopping site. They all sell versions of a COVID mask.

George_Kaplan | February 4, 2021 at 7:35 pm

A licence or medical exemption notice is the common method in countries requiring masks. Inability to supply said document at the time of your encounter with police means you get a ticket, or arrested.

Just curious, the CDC has the power to order arrests of private citizens? This country is deteriorating faster than I had predicted.

    james h in reply to Concise. | February 4, 2021 at 9:45 pm

    I’m sure they have their own SWAT teams like USDA. Apparently, you should cry over spilled milk.

    Milhouse in reply to Concise. | February 5, 2021 at 1:56 am

    No, it does not. That’s not what the post says. The CDC merely issues guidelines. But the executive order on federally-controlled transport says they have to follow the guidelines. Any enforcement will be by federal LEOs, not the CDC.

    But as far as I know it still doesn’t apply to transport that is entirely within one state.

I don’t want to be that guy, but i suspect there’s an issue with whether the CDC or Biden has authority to issue enforceable rules as if they had been passed by a body empowered to write law or statute

Please somebody wear a MAGA mask and watch the system implode on itself.

I expect complaints will soon come in from the public transportation unions after rider numbers take a nosedive.

Morning Sunshine | February 4, 2021 at 8:49 pm

I have a lung/sinus issue. I have had it for at least 5 years. Honestly, it was an annoyance and I never cared to find out why. Well, I put on a mask, and I have serious breathing issues. Within minutes. I have tried. So I mostly go without. Or I wear a single layer cotton fabric mask over my mouth and chin, allowing me to breath. Sometimes I will wear my face shield when they will not let me get away with that (Costco).
I have a friend of a friend who was trafficked as a child. A face mask goes beyond anxiety for her.

This mandate is not right.

Masks mean instant fogging of glasses.

IANAL and I don’t play one on TV, so a serious question: How does the CDC have the authority to do this complete with penalties for non-compliance?

    redc1c4 in reply to bobtuba. | February 5, 2021 at 1:34 am

    because they said so: we are no longer a nation of laws, and you are just a serf.

    how DARE you question your betters?

    Milhouse in reply to bobtuba. | February 5, 2021 at 2:00 am

    The CDC doesn’t and hasn’t. If you got that impression, please read the post again. The CDC can only issue guidelines. The president is authorized by law, which congress passed, to issue regulations for commercial interstate transport. That includes paid rideshares (i.e. fancy 21st-century taxis) that cross a state border at any point in the journey. And the regulation the president made says do whatever the CDC is saying this week.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | February 5, 2021 at 9:12 am

      Except Milhouse, it goes well beyond that. If you had actually read the document in question you’d find they are also trying to mandate masks for intrastate travel that doesn’t cross state line as well as mandating masks on Native American tribal lands that don’t already have some sort of mask mandate.

      Both of which are unconstitutional.


        Wickard v Filburn suggests it may not be unconstitutional.

        If the Feds can regulate a farmer growing feed crops for consumption by his own animals all on his own farm that never left that farm much less a State border and that was all okey dokey under the commerce clause……

        Wickard is a horrible decision. It vastly expanded the scope of the commerce clause. No matter how foolish we may think it and similar cases are the fact is they form an arguable legal basis for the Biden administration over reaching.

        That is why we need to find solid cases that can be advanced to SCOTUS to revisit these horrible decisions and perhaps get enough votes to overturn them. Not holding my breath for that.

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to CommoChief. | February 5, 2021 at 10:29 am

          Wickard v Filburn suggests it may not be unconstitutional.

          Perhaps I’m being dense (it’s been know to happen) but I can’t see how Wickard v Filburn applies in this case. There is nothing being “produced” in violation of any federal law that would give the government authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

          The Biden regime has simply stated in one of his EOs that the CDC guidelines must be followed. And the CDC guidelines are attempting to regulate intrastate conveyance (ie travel) and mandating masks for travel that doesn’t cross state lines. And neither the Biden regime nor the CDC have the authority to do so. (And they have even less authority to mandate mask on Native American tribal lands. That’s a matter of Treaty that the feds can’t get around. Native Americans control what happens on their land. Not the feds.)

          The federal government simply doesn’t have the authority under any circumstances to dictate a “mask mandate” for those engaged in intrastate travel nor what happens on Native American Tribal lands. Biden simply cannot do it in a functioning Republic. But perhaps that’s the problem. With the installation of the Biden regime we no longer have a functioning Republic where the states dictate what happens within their borders.

          Wickard v Filburn suggests it may not be unconstitutional.
          Just because the Supreme Court said it was constitutional doesn’t make it so. A truly constitutionalist Supreme Court would overturn it in a heartbeat. Instead, we have the Roberts court.

        Replying to your later question.

        Wickard, in a nutshell, says that anything that moves in, or has the potential to move in, interstate commerce, comes under the jurisdiction of Congress. So a farmer who grows crops in a state, even with the intent to sell the crops in that state, is still subject to federal law because the crops might travel in interstate commerce because, in the aggregate, the crops of many farmers actually do travel in interstate commerce.

        Using Wickard, the federal government has gone so far as to claim jurisdiction over personal property that at one time traveled in interstate commerce, both because it once so traveled and because it may so travel again in the future.

        This reminds me very much of the IRS’ attempt some decades ago to make a rule that would charge income taxes on rental fees not collected because the property owner wasn’t charging full market value for the rental property. Government regulators don’t see reality as a bar to action – if it can be imagined, they want to regulate and tax it as if it is reality.

          randian in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 5, 2021 at 7:50 pm

          This reminds me very much of the IRS’ attempt some decades ago to make a rule that would charge income taxes on rental fees not collected because the property owner wasn’t charging full market value for the rental property

          Denmark discourages home ownership by charging homeowners income tax on phantom rental income equal to the theoretical “market rent” the property would earn.

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2021 at 8:53 am

          I get it now. Thanks for the explanation.

        Except Milhouse, it goes well beyond that.

        No, it doesn’t. The CDC guidelines of course apply to intrastate transport. They’re guidelines, after all, not laws, so why would they distinguish between interstate and intrastate? The risk is the same in both. But Biden’s order to obey those guidelines only applies where he has authority. Which as I understand it is only on interstate transport (which includes any intrastate portion of such transport).

        As for Wickard, it applies only when an interstate market exists, and the item regulated is part of that market. If thousands of farmers grew their own wheat instead of buying then the national price would fall. Therefore, said the court, Congress had the power to regulate the entire wheat-growing industry including that subset that was grown for the farmer’s own consumption. It’s not obvious how that would apply here, since intrastate travel does not displace interstate travel. People who need to get from A to B, which is in another state, will not choose instead to go to C in the same state.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | February 5, 2021 at 11:36 am

      Unfortunately SCOTUS (in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) has empowered the federal government to consider anything that might move in interstate commerce to be under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. (This is likely how they will come after the guns. It doesn’t matter that they are now in private hands. If they once moved in interstate commerce, or have the potential to move in interstate commerce, the fed gov believes it has jurisdiction over them, largely due to Wickard.) (The only SCOTUS opinion to rein in federal authority under the commerce clause since Wickard overturned the Gun-Free School Zones Act in US v. Lopez (1995). I have not read the decision in years. It may only have denied the authority to enforce the act extra-territorially, i.e. outside of territory, whether ceded by a state, owned, or leased, over which Congress has appropriate jurisdiction. I write “appropriate” because Congress has only proprietary interests over some owned and leased property.)

      Here’s an article that may shed some light on how Congress might try to expand its authority over health matters using the commerce clause:

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2021 at 9:03 am

        So anything that has moved in interstate commerce in the past, is moving in interstate commerce in the present, or might move in interstate commerce in the future is fair game for regulation by the federal government,

        Holy shit, so there is no practical limit whatsoever to the federal government running rough shod over the rights of the states. All the feds have to do is justify it under Wickard and it’s all fine and dandy to do whatever they wish.

        And if that’s the case then what use is the Constitution as a document that limits the federal governments power over the states.

          Well maybe. The feds try to jam their agenda items that don’t have any separate or specific constitutional basis of authority under the commerce clause.

          This is true for the executive branch in r and d administration and by Congress under d or r majority.

          Sometimes the feds can convince a court and sometimes they can’t. The permanent bcrat that compose the various agencies and Congressional committee staff can’t really help themselves. They are trying to find ways to make their jobs easier.

          That’s why it’s important to get judicial nomination of a more strict belief in the constitution approved. DJT did a fantastic job at this.

          Equally important is to find, create cases to challenge the current precedents to chip away at them and eventually overturn them.

may I ask who gave a third party corporation the right to rule the world when it come to health?
are you aware that CDC is a corporation and its stock is traded on Brad & Dunstreet? there is so much the average American doesn’t know or understand about the CDC and the WHO

    Milhouse in reply to penleb. | February 6, 2021 at 11:37 pm

    Um, that’s utter bullshit.

    The CDC is a federal agency, not a corporation. It does not have stock.

    There is no such thing as “Brad & Dunstreet”.

    There is such a thing as Dun & Bradstreet, but it is not a stock market or trading platform.

Please advise. I am obliged to take cabs everywhere I go. Masks seriously impair my breathing. So, do I have to wear a mask in a cab or not? I don’t want trouble, but I also don’t want to play the Covid game. What would you do?

    CommoChief in reply to hopeful. | February 5, 2021 at 6:38 pm

    I don’t wish to trivialize your issue in any way. I presume that this condition is new or a pre-covid condition that has recently worsened. I state that because the Rona mask enforcement goon squad has been present for many months via localities. Maybe you moved recently or are planning traveling. I put that out to show the bcrat way of thinking, the Military turns out to have been excellent preparation for dealing with bcrat.

    In direct answer, I recommend your physician annotate that you have a condition which precludes your wear of a mask. They shouldn’t need to list a specific condition just that you have one of the multiple conditions that limit your wear of a mask.

    Maybe search your State health agency website for guidance that points to a process or procedure specific to your State for issuance and compliance.

    Milhouse in reply to hopeful. | February 6, 2021 at 11:42 pm

    1. Get a note from your doctor saying that you cannot wear a mask. Preferably it should say why, just in case someone gets nosy. Unless you want to keep that private.

    2. Call several cab companies and find out their policies. Some of them will refuse to carry you, note or no note. They do not have to carry you. They only have to make reasonable accommodations, and they may not regard this as reasonable. But you will probably find several that are willing to accommodate you. Use those.

    3. So long as your travel is entirely in one state, this specific order shouldn’t affect you. But your state or locality may have made relevant orders that will affect you. Look into those.

      randian in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2021 at 12:29 am

      Get a note from your doctor saying that you cannot wear a mask

      Amusing that you think that works. “I can’t verify that note isn’t a forgery. Go away and don’t come back until you have a mask.”

Don’t call Marty Cedron “doctor.” Call him or her a lickspittle, or toadie or sycophant. Does this rule mean that my husband and I are required to wear masks if, in exchange for him driving our car, I prepare dinner? that I and my widowed neighbor with macular degeneration must wear masks because treats me to lunch when I drive her to a physician appointment? On and on with “muzzling.”

    Milhouse in reply to FOTin1943. | February 6, 2021 at 11:46 pm

    Dr Martin Cedron has a medical degree. That makes him a doctor, and he is entitled to be called that.

    And no, it doesn’t mean any of those things. 1) You are not running a business; 2) you are also not subject to Biden’s order. You may follow the CDC’s guidelines or not, as you choose.

    Milhouse in reply to FOTin1943. | February 6, 2021 at 11:47 pm

    Damn, now you got me doing it. Cetron, not Cedron.