To all those Saying it's ok for the feds to mandate a vaccine

[Meister]

Cars are special since they run on roads, are covered by the "interstate commerce" clause, and are under ICC jurisdiction,
Schools, hospitals, health care, etc. has absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction since the constitution does not grant it.

Apples and oranges, dude.
If I drive a car, I need insurance and wear a seat belt.
If I don't drive a car, I need neither

 

[Rigby5]

Why did all our vehicles suddenly grow seat belts you might ask.

"There were no regulations for seat belt performance in the U.S. until after National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 created what is now the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA). The first seat belt law—federal law Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard—took effect in 1968. The law required manufacturers to fit seat belts into vehicles."

History of Seat Belts: Effective for Men and Women?

Looking back on the history of seat belts, have they always been effective and are they effective for every body; men, women, pregnant women?

saferide4kids.com

You have it backwards.
Volvo started seatbelts, and US manufacturers quickly followed suit.
The federal law was after the fact.
It was not awful because it did ensure standarization, but was only legal for transportation, since the constitution does give the feds jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
So it was not a health issue.
The feds has NO such jurisdiction over health issues.

 

[Rigby5]

Apples and oranges, dude.
If I drive a car, I need insurance and wear a seat belt.
If I don't drive a car, I need neither

Things like insurance and seat belts are state laws.
You do not need insurance in all states, and states like WI only require insurance if you have had an accident and failed to prove financial responsibility.
New Hampshire for example, has no seat belt requirement law.
These things can not be federally mandated.
Actually all federal drug and firearm laws are entirely illegal and no authorized by the constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

US vs EC Knight

Thank you for the case.

It is interesting. I would point out that they did not actually rule the act was unconstitutional and therefore beyond the scope of the government but rather that the specific act did not apply to the case. It does, as you seem to be pointing to, define manufacturing as not commerce though. That definition is not relevant considering the scope the SCOTUS gave the commerce clause in Wickard where they say even activities that are not commerce but might tangentially effect commerce are also covered under that clause. You know, since everything that exists and even most things that do not exist effect commerce.


Sorry, could not help myself. It was such a terrible decision.

 

[BlindBoo]

You have it backwards.
Volvo started seatbelts, and US manufacturers quickly followed suit.
The federal law was after the fact.
It was not awful because it did ensure standarization, but was only legal for transportation, since the constitution does give the feds jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
So it was not a health issue.
The feds has NO such jurisdiction over health issues.

Sure pal, tell that to the FDA.

"Sulfanilamide, a drug used to treat streptococcal infections, had been shown to have dramatic curative effects and had been used safely for some time in tablet and powder form. In June 1937, however, a salesman for the S.E. Massengill Co., in Bristol, Tenn., reported a demand in the southern states for the drug in liquid form. The company's chief chemist and pharmacist, Harold Cole Watkins, experimented and found that sulfanilamide would dissolve in diethylene glycol. The company control lab tested the mixture for flavor, appearance, and fragrance and found it satisfactory. Immediately, the company compounded a quantity of the elixir and sent shipments-- 633 of them--all over the country. U.S. Food and Drug Administration www.fda.gov The new formulation had not been tested for toxicity. At the time the food and drugs law did not require that safety studies be done on new drugs. Selling toxic drugs was, undoubtedly, bad for business and could damage a firm's reputation, but it was not illegal. Because no pharmacological studies had been done on the new sulfanilamide preparation, Watkins failed to note one characteristic of the solution. Diethylene glycol, a chemical normally used as an antifreeze, is a deadly poison"

https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/The-Sulfanilamide-Disaster.pdf

 

[Dadoalex]

That's Orwellian.......do you know what a mandate is? Biden calls it a mandate.
It's not just school, they want you fired from your job....because they want to FORCE you to get it.....the is nothing close to freedom in this.

I had COVID.......its a big deal over nothing

700k dead in the us...
Millions sickened in the US, PERMANANTLY
It's a big deal
AND
Vaccine requirements have been in place nationwide for decades.
Only the GOP politicization of COVID has you speaking these idiocies.

Want to drive a truck for a big trucking company?
Got to have your proper licenses and endorsements Oh, and you have to take regular drug tests, mandate you love.
Want to be a doctor? Got to pass med school, and all the requirements and take yearly CPEs. Another mandate unless you'd rather just anybody hang a "doctor is in" sign, Lucy.

Trump made the genius decision that politicizing the virus would lead to reelection. A great decision.
Just like the decisions of those trying desperately to suck the dust off his tiny mushroom-shaped cheeto. A sure winner, carry on!

 

[Dadoalex]

Thank you for the case.

It is interesting. I would point out that they did not actually rule the act was unconstitutional and therefore beyond the scope of the government but rather that the specific act did not apply to the case. It does, as you seem to be pointing to, define manufacturing as not commerce though. That definition is not relevant considering the scope the SCOTUS gave the commerce clause in Wickard where they say even activities that are not commerce but might tangentially effect commerce are also covered under that clause. You know, since everything that exists and even most things that do not exist effect commerce.


Sorry, could not help myself. It was such a terrible decision.

Check the decision the US uses to enforce pot laws.

In summary, since pot grown in california COULD be transported to Iowa, even though it isn't, the federal govt has the power to regulate (criminalize" pot grown and used in California. Actual decision dates back to the depression era but was not overturned several years ago.

 

[Dadoalex]

Why should I have to? Why should I have To pay a lawyer to keep my freedom.....you fascists are unreal

Or don't.
You losing the case changes the world as much as you not standing up for your "rights."
In other words,

 

[TNHarley]

Thank you for the case.

It is interesting. I would point out that they did not actually rule the act was unconstitutional and therefore beyond the scope of the government but rather that the specific act did not apply to the case. It does, as you seem to be pointing to, define manufacturing as not commerce though. That definition is not relevant considering the scope the SCOTUS gave the commerce clause in Wickard where they say even activities that are not commerce but might tangentially effect commerce are also covered under that clause. You know, since everything that exists and even most things that do not exist effect commerce.


Sorry, could not help myself. It was such a terrible decision.

Agreed!!

 

[FA_Q2]

Check the decision the US uses to enforce pot laws.

In summary, since pot grown in california COULD be transported to Iowa, even though it isn't, the federal govt has the power to regulate (criminalize" pot grown and used in California. Actual decision dates back to the depression era but was not overturned several years ago.

That dates back to the case I was citing. AFAIK, it is the original case that redefined the commerce clause to mean anything whatsoever. Between that and the broad reading of the general welfare clause, there is quite literally nothing that can be said to be outside of government power. Nothing.


Which, sadly enough, brings into reality the core fear the framers had when drafting the BoR. The EXACT thing they feared the government would do with the BoR, the thing the supporters said would not happen, absolutely did happen.

 

[buckeye45_73]

700k dead in the us...
Millions sickened in the US, PERMANANTLY
It's a big deal
AND
Vaccine requirements have been in place nationwide for decades.
Only the GOP politicization of COVID has you speaking these idiocies.

Want to drive a truck for a big trucking company?
Got to have your proper licenses and endorsements Oh, and you have to take regular drug tests, mandate you love.
Want to be a doctor? Got to pass med school, and all the requirements and take yearly CPEs. Another mandate unless you'd rather just anybody hang a "doctor is in" sign, Lucy.

Trump made the genius decision that politicizing the virus would lead to reelection. A great decision.
Just like the decisions of those trying desperately to suck the dust off his tiny mushroom-shaped cheeto. A sure winner, carry on!

Doctors oppose the mandate......Trump didn't politicize it the left did, the politicize everything.....atleast be honest

 

[buckeye45_73]

Or don't.
You losing the case changes the world as much as you not standing up for your "rights."
In other words,
View attachment 547931

Fascists gotta fascist I see

 

[the other mike]

If red flags arent going up by now as to what's transpiring then you'll never wake up out of your slumber.

You have to admit it was sheer brilliance when they conjured up the idea of associating anti-vaxers and Trump supporters....reverse psychology at its' finest.

 

[Dadoalex]

Doctors oppose the mandate......Trump didn't politicize it the left did, the politicize everything.....atleast be honest

You spew three lies and you say I need to be honest.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Dadoalex]

Fascists gotta fascist I see

And criminal Querdenken gotta crime.

Sammy Davis: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"

So quit yer bitchin

 

[the other mike]

Sammy Davis: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"

Sammy died broke and bitter.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You spew three lies and you say I need to be honest.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope the left politicized everything, politics is all they have. It's all they use to decide things.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And criminal Querdenken gotta crime.

Sammy Davis: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"

So quit yer bitchin

Yet your side lets school shooters out on bail......commies gotta commie

 

[Dadoalex]

Nope the left politicized everything, politics is all they have. It's all they use to decide things.

That is a lie.
TRUMP admitted to hiding the threat of the virus because he was afraid it might hurt his reelection chances.
Woodward has the tapes this time.
Trump politicized the virus KNOWING his actions would kill Americans.

So that that lie and stick it up your cheeto holder.

 

[Dadoalex]

Yet your side lets school shooters out on bail......commies gotta commie

Another lie and what's school shooter got to do with commie?

Just dumber and dumber.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA