What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The rule of law and OHSA’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,403
Reaction score
1,476
Points
200
Where in the Constitution has our federal government been delegated a power to enter the states and compel business owners therein to force their employees to be inoculated with a foreign substance, and one they do not want injected into their body?

Seems to me that Hamilton’s summary of the constitutionally articulated division of powers between the states and those of the federal government do not allow our federal government such latitude as explained by him in Federalist No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."



Additionally, the Tenth Amendment declares in crystal clear language:


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

And this brings us to the bottom-line question:


Where in the Constitution has such an invasive power ___ one which intrudes upon the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State ___ been delegated to our federal government?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
59,179
Reaction score
14,825
Points
2,210
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905,police power of the state.
Public health trumps Individual health.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
24,820
Reaction score
18,823
Points
2,415
Location
USA
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905,police power of the state.
Public health trumps Individual health.

Key word: STATES
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
59,179
Reaction score
14,825
Points
2,210

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
20,902
Points
2,290
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. ...



That was a state issue. It wasn't the feds dictating vaccine policy, so you can stop using that case now to promote the feds dictating vaccines.
 

Damaged Eagle

Behind blue eyes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
20,852
Reaction score
31,109
Points
2,445
Location
I have hours, only lonely
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905,police power of the state.
Public health trumps Individual health.

1640120265176.png


So now the United States courts are authorizing police states?

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

Obiwan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
12,134
Reaction score
10,003
Points
2,295
Location
Indiana
Key words, States.
Sorry, but "States" means exactly that....

STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!!

Maybe you got a little confused there and were thinking about the Fucktard's permanent "state" of confusion (which is apparently contagious).....
 

Jets

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
4,272
Reaction score
2,588
Points
940
Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision Friday to lift a stay on the emergency temporary standard (ETS) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued in November, the agency updated its guidance and set new compliance deadlines.

The ETS will give employers until Jan. 10, 2022, to implement a vaccine policy for their company and until Feb. 9, 2022, to comply with testing requirements for unvaccinated employees.

“OSHA can now once again implement this vital workplace health standard, which will protect the health of workers by mitigating the spread of the unprecedented virus in the workplace,” the update said.

The ETS had originally ordered all businesses with 100 or more employees to develop a COVID-19 vaccine policy by Jan. 4. The policy does not mandate all employees receive COVID-19 vaccines, but rather that companies determine for themselves how to best minimize the risk of their employees contracting the virus in their workplaces.

Large companies can choose to implement a mandate to comply with the ETS, or they can use an option to order unvaccinated employees to wear masks at work and be tested weekly for COVID-19. Employers must confirm their employees’ vaccination status and keep those records separate from traditional employment records.

 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
61,242
Reaction score
27,363
Points
2,330
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905,police power of the state.
Public health trumps Individual health.

Can you read, Darwin? What does this case have to do with the OP's question?

It never stops amazing me how many of you tards don't know the difference between federal and state and local governments.
 

Obiwan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
12,134
Reaction score
10,003
Points
2,295
Location
Indiana
Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision Friday to lift a stay on the emergency temporary standard (ETS) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued in November, the agency updated its guidance and set new compliance deadlines.

The ETS will give employers until Jan. 10, 2022, to implement a vaccine policy for their company and until Feb. 9, 2022, to comply with testing requirements for unvaccinated employees.

“OSHA can now once again implement this vital workplace health standard, which will protect the health of workers by mitigating the spread of the unprecedented virus in the workplace,” the update said.

The ETS had originally ordered all businesses with 100 or more employees to develop a COVID-19 vaccine policy by Jan. 4. The policy does not mandate all employees receive COVID-19 vaccines, but rather that companies determine for themselves how to best minimize the risk of their employees contracting the virus in their workplaces.

Large companies can choose to implement a mandate to comply with the ETS, or they can use an option to order unvaccinated employees to wear masks at work and be tested weekly for COVID-19. Employers must confirm their employees’ vaccination status and keep those records separate from traditional employment records.

 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,403
Reaction score
1,476
Points
200
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

1640122375964.png



That case involved an alleged power of a State, not our federal government, and, JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS was decided well before the protection of strict scrutiny was established in cases involving constitutionally protected rights, such as personal liberty.

See Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."

And when a person's liberty is infringed upon by government we find:

A government imposed act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

Finally, “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618




JWK
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,403
Reaction score
1,476
Points
200

S.C. will finally hear arguments dealing with Biden's vaccine mandates​



.
See: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on challenges to Biden vaccine mandates

12/22/21


"The Court announced Wednesday it will hear oral arguments challenging both Biden's vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees and for healthcare workers at facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding."

Hopefully the lawyers challenging these vaccine mandates will invoke the fundamental and guaranteed right of American citizens' liberty to make their own medical decisions and choices, and their right to due process, which in this case requires the protection of "strict scrutiny" when a government act infringes upon a fundamental right.

Additionally, hopefully these lawyers will also invoke the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government entering the states and meddling in their internal affairs.

Seems to me that Hamilton’s summary of the constitutionally articulated division of powers between the states and those of the federal government do not allow our federal government such latitude as explained by him in Federalist No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top