Biden V Mandate violates 14nth amendment.

Been doing a little research on Constitutional law and in my opinion this Federal vaccine mandate for private employers with 100+ employees violates the equal protection clause of the 14nth amendment.

Just a little history the 14nth amendment equal protection clause was created so African Americans after the civil war were given the same due process as white people. Also, this amendment is so different groups of people aren’t treated differently under the same law.

I read that the left thinks that because there is a testing option that the vaccine mandate will pass muster with SCOTUS.

However, this has nothing to do with a vaccine or a testing option. With the recent developments of the 600k postal service workers being exempt from this mandate and also everyone that works for the legislative branch including congressman and Senators being exempt this brings into question the constitutional authority and statutory authority the President has under Article 2.

Proof from left leaning Newsweek on congress being exempt

www.newsweek.com...


You can’t have a mandate that exempts groups of people
And especially if congress is exempt that is pretty much a double barrel middle finger to everyone in the country.

History shows that when laws never apply to who is running the government bad things happen like the French Revolution.

I just hope it isn’t too late.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

History shows that when laws never apply to who is running the government bad things happen like the French Revolution.

Bad "things" are happening .

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

I read that the left thinks that because there is a testing option that the vaccine mandate will pass muster with SCOTUS.

First of all, great thread. Secondly, what you said above is interesting, because the tests cost a lot of money and time. I have heard that many employers are going to demand that the employee bare these costs (I wonder if that would also entail time away from work in order to complete the tests....probably). So, wouldn't this also be an inequality under law?

a reply to: Brassmonkey


I was just telling my wife and parents the same thing today. Totally, violates the equal protection clause. It is also interesting that illegal Aliens are except.

Glad you’re brushing up on the law, can you find a way to impeach this cretin please?

For the sake of the, rapidly diminishing, free world?

a reply to: Brassmonkey

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Have you seen Jacobson vs Massachusetts? While it does specify state's authority, it could well cover federal authority. I think. And OSHA's authority is quite broad.

Perhaps we'll find out.

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

I read that the left thinks that because there is a testing option that the vaccine mandate will pass muster with SCOTUS.

First of all, great thread. Secondly, what you said above is interesting, because the tests cost a lot of money and time. I have heard that many employers are going to demand that the employee bare these costs (I wonder if that would also entail time away from work in order to complete the tests....probably). So, wouldn't this also be an inequality under law?

Seems to me since the vaxxed can still get Covid and are also carriers of Covid that can infect others that it'd be unequal to not also have to do the weekly tests. Stupid but equal as it were.

If you are researching Constitutional law then I'm sure you've come across Jacobson v Massachusettes.

...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 highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.

The Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that

"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars."

An exception is made in favor of "children who present a certificate, signed by a registered physician that they are unfit subjects for vaccination." § 139.

That was decided by a Conservative Supreme Court in 1905 by the way.

ETA: Apologies. I did not read Phage's post before replying. Mea culpa.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Brassmonkey

Have you seen Jacobson vs Massachusetts? While it does specify state's authority, it could well cover federal authority. I think. And OSHA's authority is quite broad.

Perhaps we'll find out.

What? You mean THE Jacobson vs Massachusetts? Have I seen it? Man, that used to be all we talked about over a keg in college. It was always Team Jacobson or Team Mass. Oh, the good ol' days. We were so young and naïve.

originally posted by: Hefficide
If you are researching Constitutional law then I'm sure you've come across Jacobson v Massachusettes.

...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 highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.

The Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that

"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars."

An exception is made in favor of "children who present a certificate, signed by a registered physician that they are unfit subjects for vaccination." § 139.

That was decided by a Conservative Supreme Court in 1905 by the way.

ETA: Apologies. I did not read Phage's post before replying. Mea culpa.

C'mon man! You stepped on my snark!

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: Brassmonkey

I read that the left thinks that because there is a testing option that the vaccine mandate will pass muster with SCOTUS.

First of all, great thread. Secondly, what you said above is interesting, because the tests cost a lot of money and time. I have heard that many employers are going to demand that the employee bare these costs (I wonder if that would also entail time away from work in order to complete the tests....probably). So, wouldn't this also be an inequality under law?

Seems to me since the vaxxed can still get Covid and are also carriers of Covid that can infect others that it'd be unequal to not also have to do the weekly tests. Stupid but equal as it were.

Excellent, excellent point.

They violate and "test" the Constitution and keep punching and punching at it until the culture changes then they simply start selectively suspending the parts they want gone ☠️

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf
One might expect that one who protests the constitutionality of something might look for some sort of precedence.

Mightn't one?

Yes I have read the Jacobson SCOTUS case. What’s interesting about that case is there was no testing option. If that minister refused the injection he could have just paid a fine which is not an option on this Federal overreach.

I have read some counter arguments that the equal protection clause only applies to the states authority and that’s a dumb argument since SCOTUS has already ruled in 2013 that the 5th amendment due process clause and equal protection under the law is not mutually exclusive.

I think SCOTUS will rule on precedent of JACOBSON case and say that only the states have the authority to mandate vaccines. But also there is are so many things wrong with this mandate on so many levels. I mean you are going to deny religious exemptions to federal government workers and have no testing options?

So congress and the courts get their religious freedoms but not 9 millions feds?




a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Hefficide

What part of the legislature is the president?

The president is not able to make laws. The lesligslatuee is for making laws and that is Congress. Separation of powers, checks and balances, that stuff still applies.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Been doing a little research on Constitutional law and in my opinion

You're a Constitutional lawyer?

See Jacobson v Massachusetts:

A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of “rationality review.” However, the vaccine would have to be approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and the law would have to require exceptions for those who have contraindications to the vaccine. A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination to prevent dangerous contagious diseases in the absence of an epidemic, such as the school immunization requirement summarily upheld in 1922, also would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others.

Instead, the question was whether the state had overstepped its own authority and whether the sphere of personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment38 included the right to refuse vaccination.

Justice Harlan stated the question before the Court: “Is this statute . . . inconsistent with the liberty which the Constitution of the United States secures to every person against deprivation by the State?”2(p25) Harlan confirmed that the Constitution protects individual liberty and that liberty is not “an absolute right in each person to be, in all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint”:

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.2(p29)

Thus, the more specific questions were whether the safety of the public justified this particular restriction and whether it was enforceable by reasonable regulations. The Court answered yes to both questions. It noted that the vaccination law applied “only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety.”2(p27) The board of health was qualified to make that judgment, and, consistent with its own precedents, the Court said that it was the legislature’s prerogative to determine how to control the epidemic, as long as it did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner.2,39,40 Vaccination was a reasonable means of control:

a reply to: Hefficide

I believe that was in regards to small pox. A case will have to be made with 3rd party data and study, in my OPINION, on the severity of such disease, and the effectiveness of so called vaccine. Considering information changes on the hour or even half hour when it comes to So called vaccines And covid-19, this can/will become a bumpy ride. Not to mention they the federal government does not have the infrastructure in place to even enforce such action. Sure there will be an inception of online record keeping and grand database primitive at first that years from now will be state of the art biometric tracking.

This in my opinion seems to be the goal. Again if I am wrong now I can say I was just paranoid.

Weird times.

a reply to: Gothmog

Bad "things" are happening .

That's the understatement of the year

Legislative vs Executive Branch

I never said I was a constitutional lawyer. What’s your point?

a reply to: SirHardHarry