The Vaccine

[scbruet]

What's new is that is it being applied to current employment status. Its not being only used as a hiring requirement as in the past, its being used as a reason for termination. You give 25+ years of service not knowing that some point in the future the company would terminate you for not injecting something into your body that you object to. To me companies set hiring requirements is one thing, much easier to swallow - termination is a whole different thing.

Yeah...I can see that on the termination part. However employers want all of their employees to feel safe and they have an obligation to keep their employees safe. It's a way they believe they are keeping them safe.

 

[scbruet]

That’s a straw man…when has the fed govt ever mandated a vaccine nationwide in violation of the Constitution?

Unconstitutional? Lets be serious, none of us are constitutional scholars here to know that one way or another. If it is a violation though, we should be seeing a case in the supreme court soon right?

It appears this is the precedent:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson upheld the right of states to compel vaccination. Although the Court acknowledged that there are spaces where an individual may “rightfully dispute the authority of any human government . . . to interfere with the exercise of [his own] will”, they expressly rejected vaccine exemptions based on personal choice. Justice Harlan, writing for the court’s majority, concluded that police powers allow states and local municipalities to pass laws that protect the public health and general welfare of their residents and that the smallpox vaccination mandate had a “real [and] substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” The opinion also asserted that “the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.”

 

[Lurch]

Unconstitutional? Lets be serious, none of us are constitutional scholars here to know that one way or another. If it is a violation though, we should be seeing a case in the supreme court soon right?

It appears this is the precedent:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson upheld the right of states to compel vaccination. Although the Court acknowledged that there are spaces where an individual may “rightfully dispute the authority of any human government . . . to interfere with the exercise of [his own] will”, they expressly rejected vaccine exemptions based on personal choice. Justice Harlan, writing for the court’s majority, concluded that police powers allow states and local municipalities to pass laws that protect the public health and general welfare of their residents and that the smallpox vaccination mandate had a “real [and] substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” The opinion also asserted that “the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.”

That was a state issue. No need for a constitutional scholar to understand that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states.

 

[crazy4life]

Unconstitutional? Lets be serious, none of us are constitutional scholars here to know that one way or another. If it is a violation though, we should be seeing a case in the supreme court soon right?It appears this is the precedent:The Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson upheld the right of states to compel vaccination. Although the Court acknowledged that there are spaces where an individual may “rightfully dispute the authority of any human government . . . to interfere with the exercise of [his own] will”, they expressly rejected vaccine exemptions based on personal choice. Justice Harlan, writing for the court’s majority, concluded that police powers allow states and local municipalities to pass laws that protect the public health and general welfare of their residents and that the smallpox vaccination mandate had a “real [and] substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” The opinion also asserted that “the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States . . . does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.”

hat SC decision gave 1 state the power to enforce vaccines. It did not give the federal govt. that power.
If you actually read the decision there is one sentence that is very interesting.

“It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine”

The SC was very adament in state’s rights. The interesting part is that if the SC SAID THE STATE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE A MANDATE, LOGIC WOULD DICTATE THAT THE STATE ALSO HAS THE POWER TO BAN VACCINE MANDATES.

Very interesting indeed. Can’t wait to hear the oral arguments in the very near future on this one.

By the way just because the SC made a decision in 1905 it is not binding on future decisions because of precedent. The SC can make any decisions that 5 Justices agree o

 

[scbruet]

That was a state issue.

Hmm...so states like Cali and NY are within their constitutional rights I guess with their vax rules? I guess the fed government believes they found a loophole through OSHA?

 

[scbruet]

hat SC decision gave 1 state the power to enforce vaccines. It did not give the federal govt. that power.
If you actually read the decision there is one sentence that is very interesting.

“It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine”

The SC was very adament in state’s rights. The interesting part is that if the SC SAID THE STATE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE A MANDATE, LOGIC WOULD DICTATE THAT THE STATE ALSO HAS THE POWER TO BAN VACCINE MANDATES.

Very interesting indeed. Can’t wait to hear the oral arguments in the very near future on this one.

By the way just because the SC made a decision in 1905 it is not binding on future decisions because of precedent. The SC can make any decisions that 5 Justices agree o

Is it unconstitutional.? The point is I don't know, and neither does anybody else in this forum.

 

[Lurch]

Hmm...so states like Cali and NY are within their constitutional rights I guess

Is it unconstitutional.? The point is I don't know, and neither does anybody else in this forum.

The fact that every SC decision isn’t a 9-0 ruling should be an indication that even constitutional scholars get it wrong.

 

[crazy4life]

Is it unconstitutional.? The point is I don't know, and neither does anybody else in this forum.

On that point you are correct.

 

[Lurch]

Is it unconstitutional.? The point is I don't know, and neither does anybody else in this forum.

Be unconstitutional? Or ruled unconstitutional? It’s an important distinction. If you can show me where it gives the feds the power to mandate a vaccine, I’ll concede your point. No penumbras, please

 

[scbruet]

Be unconstitutional? Or ruled unconstitutional? It’s an important distinction. If you can show me where it gives the feds the power to mandate a vaccine, I’ll concede your point. No penumbras, please

Whats the distinction?

 

[tabbibus]

I can get fired if I don't get my flu shot. What's new? If I work at the VA, as a federal employee, I can also get fired if no flu shot...

 

[Lurch]

Whats the distinction?

Dred Scott. They’re not infallible. If 5 of 9 men in black robes say it’s constitutional, it’s not always the case.

 

[crazy4life]

I can get fired if I don't get my flu shot. What's new? If I work at the VA, as a federal employee, I can also get fired if no flu shot...

Maybe you should work for Congress or the Federal Court system.

Rules for thee and not for me. Probably part of the vaccine mandate debate.


CONGRESS AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, CONGRESSIONAL STAFF
Congress is a part of the legislative branch and therefore not subject to the vaccine mandate.

JUDICIAL BRANCH
There is no national vaccine policy for the judicial branch. So far, federal district courts in only three of the 10 largest U.S. cities have announced they are requiring employees to get vaccinated (here).

Even in the country's largest city, New York, divisions exist: The Manhattan-based Southern District of New York imposed a vaccine mandate on Monday, while no such rule exists in Brooklyn's Eastern District of New York. Further reading on this here .

 

[scbruet]

Dred Scott. They’re not infallible. If 5 of 9 men in black robes say it’s constitutional, it’s not always the case.

haha OK then

 

[AZMark]

What's new is that is it being applied to current employment status. Its not being only used as a hiring requirement as in the past, its being used as a reason for termination. You give 25+ years of service not knowing that some point in the future the company would terminate you for not injecting something into your body that you object to. To me companies set hiring requirements is one thing, much easier to swallow - termination is a whole different thing.

The fact is unvaccinated people are more likely to spread infection through their business and that is a pain in the ass for companies and not worth the risk.

They are definitely emboldened by the gov, but the same people generally politically aligned against the vaccine mandates have voted for and supported corporate rights over those of individuals forever. It’s kind of amusing to see the outrage that companies don’t give a shit about their workers rights on this one particular point.

 

[Bruce]

I find it interesting that so many are complaining about a federal vaccination mandate. What federal vaccination mandate is that?

The not yet published OSHA regulation is intended to be a testing mandate.

The federal government has a right to establish employment policies for its employees and contractors just as any other employer does.

Currently I see a lot of whining and very little reality.

 

[Lurch]

I find it interesting that so many are complaining about a federal vaccination mandate. What federal vaccination mandate is that?

The not yet published OSHA regulation is intended to be a testing mandate.

Huh...from the horse's mouth. "As your President, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to require more Americans to be vaccinated, to combat those blocking public health".

Once again, your assertions are not backed up by facts.

 

[MidnightRider]

The not yet published OSHA regulation is intended to be a testing mandate.

Come on... - INTENT??? You know full well the INTENT of the OSHA regulation is to force as many people to vaccinate as possible. Between the cost to companies for weekly testing and the simple logistics of it, it was intended to force company wide vaccination in the end. This OSHA ploy was nothing more than a loop-hole-end-around for a Federal Vaccination Mandate that they knew directly they would never get away with constitutionally. If you think otherwise you either are fooling yourself or have you head in the sand.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

I find it interesting that so many are complaining about a federal vaccination mandate. What federal vaccination mandate is that?

The not yet published OSHA regulation is intended to be a testing mandate.

The federal government has a right to establish employment policies for its employees and contractors just as any other employer does.

Currently I see a lot of whining and very little reality.

I agree with Bruce. I will also add that quite frankly something is not unconstitutional until a federal court rules so.

Regarding vaccine requirements, at a federal level, two of the drivers I have seen are:

1) Federal funding through CMS (the power of the purse) with Medicare and Medicaid monies, and
2) the Commerce Clause of the Constitution - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

I think that most people don't understand the Commerce Clause or its widespread impact. This is a huge source of authority for many federal agencies, as Congress passes laws based of the authority of the Commerce Clause, and federal agencies then promulgate regulations based on the laws. OSHA authorities would likely derive from whatever employee health and safety laws they enforce that can also be traced back to the Commerce Clause.

Realistically laws and regulations are effective till they are recinded, replaced, or a court rules them unconstitutional.

As a federal employee, I'm required to be vaccinated even if I work remotely. I'm okay with federal employee mandate and have been fully vaccinated since last April.

Jim

 

[Beachbummer]

With the results seen so far, the government would be incompetent not to pursue all opportunities to legally attempt to vaccinate as many people as possible.