Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts

[Rawley]

The General Welfare clause alone would be a solid basis.

Nah. You go down that route there is literally no limit to the power of the federal government.

 

[Skylar]

Military, not civilian.

The basis is employee. If the federal government can require vaccination of one class of employees, then what would prevent them from requiring it from another?

If the federal government lacks the authority to require employees to be vaccinated, how can they require it of millions of current and former employees. If they possess such authority, what would prevent them from requiring it of millions more current and former employee.

Your 'civilian/military' distintion doesn't answer any of these questions.

 

[Skylar]

Nah. You go down that route there is literally no limit to the power of the federal government.

When we're talking about a disease that has killed 1 in 500 Americans, you have a very strong 'General Welfare' argument. Especially when what the government is exercising its authority to do is get people vaccinated to help prevent that disease.

 

[Skylar]

Um... I just stopped by to ask:

Has anyone ever heard of the 10th Amendment?

Me? Sure. The case however makes no mention of it. It cites the 14th as part of the arguments surrounding it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh.


"For the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, mandatory vaccines, forced conscription, and sterilization of the intellectually disabled were all permissible uses of a state’s police power. But the Supreme Court, like American society in general, changed in the decades that followed because of the New Deal, the libertarian movement, the feminist movement, the disability rights movement, the civil rights movement, and a growing appreciation across the political spectrum for civil liberties.

Here are just a few of the landmark Supreme Court rulings and cases that have established a constitutional right to “bodily integrity” — to maintain control over our bodies — in recent decades. You are allowed to buy and use contraceptives — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). You are allowed to marry anyone regardless of race — Loving v. Virginia (1967). You are allowed to abort a fetus in the first trimester — Roe v. Wade (1973). You may not be subjected to experimental drugs or therapies without your consent, even if you are in the military — United States v. Stanley (1987). You are allowed to refuse medical treatment, including interventions that may save your life — Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990). You are allowed to have intimate sexual relations with people of the same sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) and to marry them (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)."

A weakness in the argument for vaccine mandates - The Boston Globe

The Supreme Court decision allowing the government to require vaccines is out of synch with dozens of other cases allowing people autonomy over their bodies.

www.bostonglobe.com

Are we suddenly going to undo these for the sake of forcing people to vaccinate?

 

[Skylar]

Oh.


"For the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, mandatory vaccines, forced conscription, and sterilization of the intellectually disabled were all permissible uses of a state’s police power. But the Supreme Court, like American society in general, changed in the decades that followed because of the New Deal, the libertarian movement, the feminist movement, the disability rights movement, the civil rights movement, and a growing appreciation across the political spectrum for civil liberties.

Here are just a few of the landmark Supreme Court rulings and cases that have established a constitutional right to “bodily integrity” — to maintain control over our bodies — in recent decades. You are allowed to buy and use contraceptives — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). You are allowed to marry anyone regardless of race — Loving v. Virginia (1967). You are allowed to abort a fetus in the first trimester — Roe v. Wade (1973). You may not be subjected to experimental drugs or therapies without your consent, even if you are in the military — United States v. Stanley (1987). You are allowed to refuse medical treatment, including interventions that may save your life — Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990). You are allowed to have intimate sexual relations with people of the same sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) and to marry them (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)."

A weakness in the argument for vaccine mandates - The Boston Globe

The Supreme Court decision allowing the government to require vaccines is out of synch with dozens of other cases allowing people autonomy over their bodies.

www.bostonglobe.com

Are we suddenly going to undo these for the sake of forcing people to vaccinate?

Yeah, but interracial marriage isn't airborne and contagious. The primary weakness to citing Loving, Griswold, or Stanley is the threat that the unvaccinated pose to other people individually and to the general welfare of our nation.

Not one of the cases you cited addresses this immediately relevant issue.

 

[OKTexas]

GOP governors pledge to sue over Biden's business vaccine mandate

Biden tells Republicans threatening to sue over vaccine mandate: ‘Have at it’

And xiden will lose. As your two examples show, mandates are the purview of the States and localities, not the feds. It falls under the States policing powers.

.

 

[Rawley]

The basis is employee. If the federal government can require vaccination of one class of employees, then what would prevent them from requiring it from another?

If the federal government lacks the authority to require employees to be vaccinated, how can they require it of millions of current and former employees. If they possess such authority, what would prevent them from requiring it of millions more current and former employee.

Your 'civilian/military' distintion doesn't answer any of these questions.

You asked for precedent. There is only precedent for vaccinating soldiers and only to extent that it is required for their duties. There is no precedent for Federal goverment mandating vaccinations for their civilian employees.

If you can't see the distinction between the military and civilians, I really can't help you.

 

[22lcidw]

Oh how funny to hear an anti-vaxxer claim that math and science is important to them!

You are the ones trained to say anti vaxxer and the science and math mantras. This is a matter of not trusting people who have spewed propaganda for many years and have made a portion of the population the enemy to get their agendas passed.

 

[Skylar]

And xiden will lose. As your two examples show, mandates are the purview of the States and localities, not the feds. It falls under the States policing powers.

.

If such were the case, then the federal government would have no authority on any workplace safety issue. The existence of OSHA alone would contradict such an assumption.

 

[Rawley]

When we're talking about a disease that has killed 1 in 500 Americans, you have a very strong 'General Welfare' argument. Especially when what the government is exercising its authority to do is get people vaccinated to help prevent that disease.

LOL Obesity and heart disease kill many more than 1 in 500 in this country. Under your theory of the Constitution, the Federal gvt could put you in prison if you don't lose weight and stop smoking.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I won't make you, but if your employer has over 100 employees, they can fire you.

(smile) We have 2300 and I have been cleared to work from home. You lose.

 

[dblack]

Every soldier is an employee of the federal government. And they get 17 different vaccines as part of their service.

Why would an 18th suddenly cross a line? Clearly there's precedent for the federal government requiring its employees to be vaccinated.

Hmmm.. you completely missed my point. If it wasn't on purpose, I'm happy to clarify: The problem I have with the mandate is that the government is conscripting businesses to do their dirty work for them. Sets a really bad precedent. I don't want my employer being my "minder".

 

[dblack]

Nah. You go down that route there is literally no limit to the power of the federal government.

Exactly why that's the first "route" they head for.

 

[dblack]

If such were the case, then the federal government would have no authority on any workplace safety issue. The existence of OSHA alone would contradict such an assumption.

Yep. Exactly why OSHA is bad government.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The vaccinated make up 4 percent of Covid deaths. The unvaccinated make up 96 percent.

You truly have to be retarded to bleev the vaccine doesn't work.

The mortality rate is .08, you're quite the terrified little boi aren't you?

 

[Skylar]

You asked for precedent. There is only precedent for vaccinating soldiers and only to extent that it is required for their duties. There is no precedent for Federal goverment mandating vaccinations for their civilian employees.

If you can't see the distinction between the military and civilians, I really can't help you.

There is precedent for the federal government requiring vaccines for their employees. So there's no debate on whether or not such authority exists. It verifiable does.

You've insisted that it doesn't extend to certain classes of employees. There's no precedent that establishes this. Its just you saying it must be so.

Show me the law or court rulings saying that government lacks such authority. As I can show you the government mandating vaccines for employees, demonstrating that authority exists.

 

[Rawley]

If such were the case, then the federal government would have no authority on any workplace safety issue. The existence of OSHA alone would contradict such an assumption.

OSHA is only in business via the Commerce clause. There are shitload of us that question that even that power.

 

[Skylar]

The mortality rate is .08, you're quite the terrified little boi aren't you?

We've lost 1 in 500 Americans. Your ilk shit their collective panties for 2 decades on 3000 deaths on 9/1. But you're going to lecture us on being 'terrified' when the death toll is orders and orders of magnitude higher?

 

[Rogue AI]

If such were the case, then the federal government would have no authority on any workplace safety issue. The existence of OSHA alone would contradict such an assumption.

Show us the legislated authority given to OSHA that would allow them to enforce this.