COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Illegal, But It's Not Being Argued Properly In The Courts

DISCLAIMER: THIS THREAD IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE COVID-19 VACCINE THAT IS APPROVED UNDER EMERGENCY-USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) AND OTHER GENERAL TREATMENTS COVERED BY EUA. PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL THIS DISCUSSION BY BRINGING UP COURT RULINGS THAT DEAL WITH FULLY FDA-APPROVED MEDICAL TREATMENTS (I.E.: JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTES [1905])
***************************************************************

There have been multiple instances where a COVID-19 vaccine mandate by either an employer, school, or other entity, has recently been challenged in court, only to lose and the mandate remains intact. I cannot say that I blame the judges, as it seems that most, if not all, of the challenges have had a basis in how it violates the 14th Amendment. That was the same basis used in the Jacobson case linked above, and it failed to win against a fully-approved vaccine--the plaintiffs and attorneys should have realized that their cases would fail on that basis, although I admire them trying (I mean, there were two dissenting judges in the Jacobson case, so there’s always a chance).

What is really frustrating is that there is a real reason to challenge these mandates, but when these plaintiffs and attorneys don’t have the proper basis or argument, the challenges will continue to go nowhere. They are chasing the wrong argument, and let’s discuss why.

It begins with TITLE 21 § 360bbb–3. Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, so let’s look at the pertinent parts that make mandating the EUA COVID-19 vaccine pretty obviously against this federal statute (notable parts underlined by me):

(e) Conditions of authorization

(1) Unapproved product


(A) Required conditions


With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Secretary, to the extent practicable given the circumstances of the emergency, shall, for a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or appropriate to protect the public health, including the following:


(i) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that health care professionals administering the product are informed—


(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of the emergency use of the product, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the alternatives to the product that are available, and of their benefits and risks.


(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—


(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

My biggest point of contention—and the basis of my argument—is that the law specifically states that every “individual to whom the product is administered” has the “option to accept or refuse administration of the product...” It really could not be more plainly stated: we all have the option to accept or refuse the COVID-19 vaccines, without exception!

I have read the pertinent section of this statute multiple times, and I don’t see an annotation anywhere that says anything similar to, “The option to refuse administration of the product is null and void providing for mandates issued by federal, state, or private entities.”

The problem is, none of the parties who have brought suit against these mandates is arguing this in court, and it has NEVER been argued in court. The supposed issue comes in with the language in the statue that reads, "...of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product..." Now, this is rather ambiguous to some people, where they say that "consequences" can deal with things like not being able to obtain or retain employment, or gain access to a university, or travel on a plane. I would argue that people who subscribe to this line of thinking fall under the authoritarian point of view.

The non-authoritarians (and, IMO, just plain logical people) see that verbiage as meaning that the "consequences" refer to medical consequences, such as increased odds of contracting the disease or spreading it or succumbing to severe symptoms.

These two points of view need to be dissected and the verbiage needs to be defined by a court of law at this point, as I believe that this holds the key to determining if ANY future and current mandated products or treatments administered under an EUA are legal. We need this settled, and it needs to be settled sooner than later. And these attorneys who are arguing the incorrect issue in court are making things worse.

For some good reading on this issue, I would suggest starting with these articles from Health Affairs and WebMD. There are certainly others out there, and many that disagree with my stance, so read up and make up your own mind.

I could write a lot more, but it's already too damn long. Here's to hoping that the next suit against an EUA-vaccine mandate is based on the proper premise that may actually have a chance at winning.

And if you research this issue and read the arguments of those who think that mandates are legal, they all seem to base their argument on the history of vaccine mandates, but fail to take into account that the current COVID-19 vaccines are not approved by the FDA, are only approved under an EUA, and therefore fall under a completely different statute as to how they can be used and administered.

Their argument generally falls flat on its face if the listener or interviewer actually knows the law. But again, please research for yourself and see what you think, and if there are any attorneys out there, please opine on if I'm off-base or on target.

"Please and Thank You." — Ron Swanson

ETA: I will be away from my computer after posting this, but will eventually check in to see what everyone's thoughts are.

Cases in court argued the "correct" way can always get some desired precedents that are hard to overturn 😎🚬

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ultimately, I don't care about written law on this, though in my opinion written law supports the right to choose.

If they rewrite the laws tomorrow and the Supreme Court says it perfectly legal, it is irrelevant. Forcing medical procedures on an entire population is evil. Segregating society as a means to force compliance is evil.

Every other country in the world can do what they want, their people can accept whatever they want, I do not accept or consent to evil where I live.

a reply to: xuenchen

And those argued incorrectly become headlines like "Court Uphold Vaccine Mandate," and the low-information citizens out there only read that and it becomes a talking point for the willfully ignorant, and that misguided "knowledge" spreads like a Delta variant in already-vaxxed people.

I don't know...am I expressing how I feel about this issue directly enough, or am I being too vague?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There is more than one way to force the vaccine.

- Lower loan interest and taxes.
- Discounts.
- Job offers.
- Free this and that....

No emergency

No vaccine

simple as that

But the fact they're going to these lengths is the most concerning of all

whats the vaccine really for? what does it really protect against?

they're trying to vaccinate a type of herd immunity - unnatrually

So what are they really scared about?

because it sure isn't covid unless the worlds gone mad

its for something else

and i have to stop speculating there

It for something far more destructive and virulent, biological warfare preparations

or ya

you're all going to be slaves

i dont know

well see

lets keep watching

a reply to: Ksihkehe

But without the laws, they can make us do anything without any avenue against it.

The laws matter. Trust me, I'm as cynical as you about this stuff, but the laws do matter, because it gives us an avenue to fight the authoritarianism. We may not always get the right outcome, but at least we have a chance.

And this law will not be updated with the make-up of the congress right now, but if they tried, it would just prove my argument.

a reply to: Trueman

That takes us into anti-discrimination issues, which the federal and state governments almost all have that would be foundations for taking it to court.

The basis of my argument is that people who are trying aren't using the right arguments in courts, so they are failing (or the judges just suck...I live in California, so I fully understand that this is a reality that cannot be ignored).

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
No emergency

No vaccine

Agreed, and that was a whole other avenue of discussion that I could have included, but I felt that my OP was already long enough.

In the statue, it specifically states that recipients of the vaccines must be made known about other extant treatments (which there are some at this point) AND about the side effects and dangers of the vaccine, which there are increasing numbers nearly daily, and I would guarantee that the HHS Secretary is NOT updating all of this stuff in a properly public way so that individuals receiving the shots are as knowledgeable as possible.

Instead, we keep seeing the claim that the vaccines are fully safe and very effective--and both claims seem to be on the path of unraveling quickly.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you assume the courts care about the actual law?

Satan is a pretty tough character. He doesnt care much about law. He has already broken them all. Its like someone who is on death row. Anything goes. He is the god of this world. Controls all the power, and money through those who bow to him. He is above the laws of man, and can sway top courts through out the world as he chooses. What he says, goes. Thats why things seem so illogical, and crazy. They are.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Ksihkehe

But without the laws, they can make us do anything without any avenue against it.

Not "us".

The only reason we're having this discussion is because they already can do almost anything they want to you. Your fellow citizens are begging for it and will cheer them on. This discussion, over a disease like COVID, doesn't happen in a rational and lawful society.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Bravo! Very well done!!!



So here's my question for you: In your opinion, should these attorneys know better. Should these attorneys be aware of this very significant difference in the law, and be arguing their cases accordingly?

This seems pretty basic to me. Even if the attorney's still wanted to argue 14th issues, they could have and should have supplemented that argument with specific law allowing for the vaccine.

There have been multiple instances where a COVID-19 vaccine mandate by either an employer, school, or other entity, has recently been challenged in court, only to lose and the mandate remains intact.

My biggest point of contention—and the basis of my argument—is that the law specifically states that every “individual to whom the product is administered” has the “option to accept or refuse administration of the product...” It really could not be more plainly stated: we all have the option to accept or refuse the COVID-19 vaccines, without exception!

No one is forcing anyone to get the vaccine. Not sure the point of this post.

If it's "muh my job is making me" there is still no force because one has the option to refuse the vaccine and, if there are job loss consequences, one must accept those also.

t.almost 30 years lawyer reading and applying complex federal statutes.

Gotta read the whole statute, pal. This reads like something a kid fresh out of law school would write because s/he saw a lawyer on t.v. do it.

Here's the rest of the statute you ignore:

of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,

The law contemplates that there could be consequences to an individual who refuses a vaccine. That's why all the cases are being lost.

no star, no flag

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Bravo! Very well done!!!

So here's my question for you: In your opinion, should these attorneys know better. Should these attorneys be aware of this very significant difference in the law, and be arguing their cases accordingly?

This seems pretty basic to me. Even if the attorney's still wanted to argue 14th issues, they could have and should have supplemented that argument with specific law allowing for the vaccine.

No one is being forced to take the vaccine. The quoted statute says a person has to be informed of the consequences of a refusal to take it.

Literally, you can be fired for not taking it. Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ultimately, I don't care about written law on this, though in my opinion written law supports the right to choose.

If they rewrite the laws tomorrow and the Supreme Court says it perfectly legal, it is irrelevant. Forcing medical procedures on an entire population is evil. Segregating society as a means to force compliance is evil.

Every other country in the world can do what they want, their people can accept whatever they want, I do not accept or consent to evil where I live.

I guess cutting that umbelic cord is some evil stuff then.
Guess we are all screwed and going to the fake hell.

As per the OP.
I don't believe atm any case that may attempt to bring this to court will fail bad.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ultimately, I don't care about written law on this, though in my opinion written law supports the right to choose.

If they rewrite the laws tomorrow and the Supreme Court says it perfectly legal, it is irrelevant.

We spent the past 15 months watching how the Constitution and Rights are treated by both the government and the courts when adhering to the document and upholding those Rights is inconvenient to the government's narrative and desires... I think people are spinning their wheels even wasting time arguing whether or not vaccine mandates are "legal" because, end of the day, the government's own courts will 100% uphold whatever position the government wants them to uphold.

Any magic the courts ever once had in this nation were long ago exposed to be smoke and mirrors... they are but another arm of the multi-tentacled beast of the government, at all levels and their position on issues is just as worthless to the free man as that government's position on issues is. We need to start living our lives the way we want to live them and reclaiming our liberty from those who have stolen it by whatever means are needed to resecure it. Too many Americans have died over the past 250 years to secure at least the illusion of those Rights for us to allow them to be totally stripped away, whether that stripping is called "legal" or not.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ultimately, I don't care about written law on this, though in my opinion written law supports the right to choose.

If they rewrite the laws tomorrow and the Supreme Court says it perfectly legal, it is irrelevant. Forcing medical procedures on an entire population is evil. Segregating society as a means to force compliance is evil.

Every other country in the world can do what they want, their people can accept whatever they want, I do not accept or consent to evil where I live.

I guess cutting that umbelic cord is some evil stuff then.
Guess we are all screwed and going to the fake hell.

Did anybody drop a chromosome?

We appear to have an extra one in this thread.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

"(i) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that health care professionals administering the product are informed— "

Health care professionals administer the product.

It's obvious that the health care professional will inform you of the health consequences.

"(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks."

Again the health care professional administers the product.