Biden V Mandate violates 14nth amendment.

Ugh...this trend of comparing mask and vaccine mandates to the injustices towards black people while being the same group who says there's no such thing as systemic racism is so cringy. Stop.

We have unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty could be used as an argument against masks and vaccine mandates but the right of liberty does not release you from being liable. So protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what the masks and vaccines do.

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

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.

Even the gorillas are getting into it....

This party is LIT!

a reply to: Brassmonkey

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

Collective bargaining agreements carry certain benefits, and drawbacks.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

When you are only testing unvaccinated people routinely, you are bound to have skewed case rate data.

They can't even prove the vaccines are effective at preventing infection, at all. The data is crap.

The case you posted addresses “ Your freedom extends to my nose question” and I get that. Once my decisions effect the safety of other people then my freedom goes bye bye.

I get that


My initial post has nothing to do with this argument. Is had to do with specific groups being treated differently under the mandate.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: game over man
Ugh...this trend of comparing mask and vaccine mandates to the injustices towards black people while being the same group who says there's no such thing as systemic racism is so cringy. Stop.

We have unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty could be used as an argument against masks and vaccine mandates but the right of liberty does not release you from being liable. So protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what the masks and vaccines do.

You sound like my teenage daughter.

But the fact you used "un vs in- alienable" suggests you should be old enough to know better.

Was that to much systemic racism of English for you?

Care to comment on Elder being attacked in CA? Or is it just one sided?

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Jacobson v. Massachusetts was also the precedent cited by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1927 Buck v. Bell in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forced sterilization of undesirables. Do you also support that?

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
I never said I was a constitutional lawyer. What’s your point?

a reply to: SirHardHarry

You're...not a constitutional lawyer, nor did you cite any law. Your *opinion* doesn't...matter.

a reply to: Chalcedony

Are we talking about Buck v. Bell or forced sterilization?

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.

Some people think that's an outdated precedent.

Probably mostly the same people who believe that line of reasoning doesm't apply to 2A and believe the 14A doesn't apply to women.

Yes, we'll see, but it may be a very long battle.

Also to the OP...

Update on required COVID vaccines for postal workers
September 10, 2021
Confusion over Whether Postal Workers Exempt from Vaccine Mandate
U.S. Postal Service workers are subject to a rule to be developed by the Labor Department mandating coronavirus vaccinations for workers and weekly testing for non-vaccinated employees at companies with over 100 workers, a senior Biden administration official told CNN and the Washington Post.

The clarification came after the Washington Post reported that White House officials said U.S. Postal Service employees are exempt from the Biden administration’s new coronavirus vaccine mandates for federal workers. [Source]

a reply to: Brassmonkey

I think, Biden, might get this mandate pushed through, but it will be short lived, I think in 2022, the democratic majority in Congress will go bye bye, in my OPINION, people are waking up, if covid has done anything in it’s almost 2 years of being in the wild, it has awakened allot of people. Sure we still have people out here scared of their shadow, but when prices continue to rise on goods and services due to labor shortages and ther luxuries and comfortable ways of life are impeded, which they will be even more, they will come to there senses.

Unless the short term goal is to FORCE people to get vaccinated. However politically in my opinion this is a guarantee lose position to take, so we may not be seeing the whole picture folks.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Not sure what your question is... I mean Buck v. Bell was the case that went to the Supreme Court which ruled that Carrie Buck could be sterilized against her will because in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes "three generations of imbeciles is enough." So I guess.... do you support a doctor having the ability to decide you are undesirable and sterilize you against your will? Because that is the precedent Jacobson v. Massachusetts set. Holmes literally cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts as the reason for the ruling in Buck v. Bell. Why am I having to explain history to people who seem to have such strong opinions?

Neither does your opinion matter either

Marbury Vs Madison says the only opinion that matters is SCOTUS. There is your case law since you complained about me not citing any case law.

Also, since Jacobson is the precedent for states to vaccinate individuals. How does this give the a Federal agency like OSHA the power to vaccinate?
Where in Article 2 of the constitution does the President have this authority for this edict?

What case law is there that gives the Federal government power to forcibly vaccinate private employees from private companies?



a reply to: SirHardHarry

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The vaccine probably prevents more cases of Covid than only drinking a glass of water does. But I don’t think a comparative study has been done to see just how more effect the vax is over a glass of water. I wouldn’t expect a large advantage though.

a reply to: Hefficide

Also, most of the justices of the current court idolize Harlan.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

What case law is there that gives the Federal government power to forcibly vaccinate private employees from private companies?

Forcibly? You mean like held down while the vaccine is administered?

The same law that requires private companies to provide a safe work environment, I think. But maybe we'll find out.

The other issue that may blow up the case with regards to a SCOTUS ruling is the lack of any exemptions to the mandates.

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.

If the goal is a poke for everyone than no exemptions correct? The part that really gets me laughing is it could also blow up Roe vs Wade because it would set a precedent that your choice to choose for your body is not necessary, the government has the final say. Unintended consequences and all.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Neither does your opinion matter either

I didn't give my opinion. I shared a SCOTUS case, with a link, how it's constitutional, even against 14th amendment claims.

Also, since Jacobson is the precedent for states to vaccinate individuals. How does this give the a Federal agency like OSHA the power to vaccinate?

Equal applicability under law in the instance of a public health crisis, I imagine. It's what the precedent alluded to, in addition to it's explicitness.

a reply to: SirHardHarry
The Supreme Court of the US is the ONLY court that can adjudicate a Constitutional matter .
That's their job .
No other court matters whatsoever .
Learn US Civics .