Biden V Mandate violates 14nth amendment.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Even if the SCOTUS decide that it is okay to force vaccinations, millions of Americans, and my entire family in the U.S., will not succumb to such tyranny. The common cold/pneumonia etc have about the same death rate as COVID-19. Remember that for a long time, and even to this day, most hospitals and healthcare leaders have been lying and have been inflating the numbers of deaths of COVID-19. This is about tyranny. If they can force Americans to be vaccinated, and to continue to use masks that do not stop viruses, they can implement other draconian measures. Which is exactly what they plan to do.

Welcome to the illegitimate China Biden tyrannical government.

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

"...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."

Why do lawyers almost always argue the wrong point.

This is a clear and blatant violation of my 9th Amendment right to the inviolable integrity of my life and body.

originally posted by: game over man
So protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what the masks and vaccines do.

Yeah, ummm... except they don't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Brassmonkey
Collective bargaining agreements carry certain benefits, and drawbacks.

Like... overriding the 14th Amendment?

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
Soo, abortion is wrong because it violates the right to life, and my body my choice don't matter.

Yeah, except the baby's body is not the Mothers body, so 'my body my choice' doesn't apply.

But....vaccines and mask mandates are also wrong because it's my body my choice

Yes. The evidence is overwhelming that masks do little to nothing, and the jabs don't keep anyone from getting COVID, spreading COVID, or getting sick or dying. There is of course an unverified claim by those with the most to gain that they MAY help prevent serious illness, but it is far, far from proven, as are the long term safety claims.

You guys are silly and don't make much sense.

Yes... you are.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
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:

Yes, that was mentioned twice already prior to your post.

And it's is in reference to a State mandating, not the Feds.

Feds do not have that authority. The States do, and that's enshrined in our Constitution.

Also says Legislature has the power, not the Executive branch.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

" Why the Vaccine Mandate is Unconstitutional
As you can imagine, the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate will be a litigated as soon as OSHA issues the rules. The media is running interference, telling the public that challenges to the mandate are “unlikely to succeed.”

Do not believe them.

The legality of the vaccine mandate will be assessed under what is called the major rules doctrine (also known as the major questions doctrine). Under this doctrine, the courts look to (1) whether the agency action is a major rule; and (2) whether Congress has clearly authorized the agency action.

As Justice Scalia stated in 2014, “We expect congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”

" From here we turn to the first question of the major rules doctrine: there is zero doubt that it is a major rule. It would affect the healthcare decision – and implicate the personal autonomy – of “some 80 million private sector workers.” It is an action never before taken by OSHA, the Department of Labor, and any other federal agency. It would affect the entire US economy.

In support of my position, we have seen lesser invasive agency rules be determined to be major rules. For example, “rate-regulations” of telephone companies has been held to be a major rule. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994).

From there we get to the second question: whether Congress has clearly authorized the Department of Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines. The answer is no. "


www.zerohedge.com...


We are going to Finally See If the SCOUS Upholds the Unconstitutionality of this Biden Administrations Vaccine Mandate . If they Don't Do the " Right Thing " , then we are ALL Effed...........(

People don't care about their constitutional rights. They only get outraged when a football player kneels during the National Anthem; which was actually made to sell more flags.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

This video is the most important thing you will watch this year. This guy invented mRNA vaccination.
Best summary I’ve seen: Robert Malone

youtu.be...

enjoy reading this very much

originally posted by: DaBoogieMan
People don't care about their constitutional rights. They only get outraged when a football player kneels during the National Anthem; which was actually made to sell more flags.

wow you win the award for most poorly attempted deflection .

pssst... you know people can BOTH care about their constitutional rights AND be angry at those overpaid coddled childish douchwaffles taking a knee ON COMPANY TIME (btw not protected under first amendment)

smh

scrounger

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
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

If the states want highway funding, education funding, all and every type of federal funding they will hold it ransom until the states pass laws requiring vaccination.

a reply to: tkwasny

actually they did do that holding highway funds (part or whole) until they had mandatory helmate and seatbelt laws.

scrounger

a reply to: Brassmonkey

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.

Punctuation would help - you need something before the 'the 14nth' (it's 14th, by the way) - try reading your sentence without pausing that that point, it sounds like some maniac, who can't understand context, trying to speedread something that goes over their head..

It's more than 'a little history'.

White people? Really? What about asians, mexicans, eskimos, indians, the other type of indians, etc.? Why do you call them 'african americans', when it's not often even accurate, and even the people themselves reject that term? Someone that's born in New York is not 'african' anything, they're American americans, if anything. Tiptoeing and dancing around terms to not offend anyone only leads to confusion and a mess - just be brave and abandon euphemism worship.

Just as a sidenote, why doesn't the eumphemism treadmill ever do anything about the age-old terms, like 'white people'? Can you honestly see any actually WHITE people anywhere (unless you mean souls, but maybe especially then..)? No one calls white people 'caucasians' (except the cops maybe) or 'European Americans' or anything. Just as logical a term as 'African American'.

'Due process'? You mean civil rights? What do they need 'due process' (whatever this means) for, if a crime has not been committed?

It was never really about race per se - when we talk about things like 'voting' or participating in the 'government', it was extremely limited who got to do anything. Filthy rich land owners (that had white slaves, too, and basically the whole country was started and built on the backs of white slaves, but you don't hear about this, because it doesn't fit the narrative that white people bad, black people good).

If you weren't a rich land owner, you didn't have as much 'due process' (to use your term), 'civil rights' or any way to vote or participate in any power structure. Most people didn't have much power back in the day, it wasn't a system where whites had everything and blacks had nothing - also, are you saying there weren't any black people with any kind of power at any time in history?

It wasn't so much about race, as it was about other things, so using that race rhetoric is intellectually disingenious and a little bit disgusting in my opinion. Not to mention simplifying a complex thing.

Also, it wasn't about 'bringing back people to equality' as much as it was 'enslaving EVERYONE without their consent or knowledge' by the 'social security number' that suddenly was 'issued' (beware of this word, by the way - if someone 'issues' you something, it's a very deep legalese thing that you should research before accepting) to EVERYONE.

So instead of having a group that was in slavery, and then freed and brought to equality, they had a plan to actually transform the METHOD of slavery, and EXPAND it to encompass all people, not just that smaller group. But from an outsider's perspective that didn't know what was actually happening, it looked like 'freed slaves and also gained a great thing called 'social security number' or whatever it's called these days (the term itself has changed many times, has varied between states and countries and so on).

We have all been made slaves due to 'legal fiction' Black's Law Dictionary calls 'artificial person' - there's supposed to be 'natural person', which is the human being with all rights intact and usable, but the usage of that is so diminished, that basically every time any official paper talks about 'person', it's pointing to 'artificial person', so from this perspective, 'person' = 'artificial person' = legal fiction, not a living human being.

Social security number, 'your ID' is actually not yours, it belongs to this 'person' that carries 'almost your name' (instead of John Smith, the name is written either SMITH, John or Smith, John, or John SMITH or even JOHN Smith (this is rare, I think) - and of course JOHN SMITH) - it looks like your name, but there's always a tiny peculiarity, like 'surname first' or something strangely capitalized (sometimes the whole name).

So when we talk about 'a little history', perhaps a deeper reseach into that 'little history' would've been wise, because this 'little' bit of history is actually a MAJOR turning point in enslaving people and diminishing their liberty and freedoms - human rights are unalienable, they can't be taken away. But human beings have right to unlimited contracting, which means they can give consent to 'not being able to use their rights', and that's basically where we are now.

In any case, nice that people are looking into it, but your version of history sounds like a processed, watered-down schoolbook version of what TPTB wants people to think, instead of what actually happened.

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

1905 that disease was way more deadly. Not even in the same ballpark.

Not relevant. The principle is that individual rights must, at times, take the backseat to public health.

Can it be overturned? Yes. Has it been? No.

really?
our "rights" must take back seat to public health?

do you REALLY STAND by this?

well then you must be ok/in favor with

suspending first amendment freedom of speach since "false information on covid" can lead to more deaths.
freedom to assemble since groups lead to outbreaks.. this includes defund police, blm, antifa, pro abortion, transexual rights, gay rights, democratic conventions, school board meetings, restaurants, going to big lot stores and grocery stores (we have delivery and amazon right?), ect.
freedom to address grievances to the government..
you know it is a "pandemic" and you cant question in anyway the edicts of the leaders..

how about fourth amendment
we have to search you at any time for any reason to make sure you have your covid card, to make sure you did go to your doctors appointment, to make sure your home and not at a "gathering", to search your home for anyone not a family member , and seach your person to make sure you have a mask on your persons at all times.

how about the fourteen amendment of due process..
you know do to the increased infection we must arrest you for violating the mandates in any way and hold you without trial until the infection numbers come down..just to be safe.
or a quick trial with no appeal to a "isolation camp" for "the safety of the population" until a government official (not even a doctor) determines your no longer a threat.

how about the fourth amendment
we must have a military person(s) housed and fed at your house... just to make sure you and your neighborhood are obeying the covid mandates.

hell we better temporarily suspend all courts to include the supreme court until the "pandemic" is under control
military and federal agencies have complete control with no recourse.
to include arrest, jail , and even deadly force without recourse or due process..

you know all for public health.

i am DIRECTLY CHALLENGING your comment and ASKING if all the other rights i just stated are ok for suspension for
"public health"?

looking forward to your answer..

scrounger

I am reposting this because not only has phage suddenly turned silent on challenging him (something rare enough to call a unicorn sighting) that clearly shows he cant defend his point.


but to open it up to ALL THOSE SUPPORTING IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION FOR "PUBLIC SAFETY".

Read what i posted and now i ask you are you ok with suspending other constitutional rights as well "for public safety"

or will i hear more crickets...

Scrounger

originally posted by: Bicent
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.

I'm sorry but have you been living under a rock all these years(no-offense)? Between all the FEMA camps that are already built and ready to go, AI, and a military that will now be mostly comprised of leftist buy-ins/vaccinated believers as well as all the internet tracking and censoring that's been happening for years now and you still think it'll be years yet until they have a biometric system in place? Are you indeed actually Joe Biden posting on here? You're literally about 20 years behind us all. Do yourself a favor and just keep reading through this site until you fill yourself in enough so that you can validly discuss things in a more present-time sense.

a reply to: Shoujikina

Thank you replying to my comment. I agree with
you about traditional slavery being converted to
Modern day wage slavery now. You made excellent points
and I agree with about 90% of what you say.

However, your comments are condescending,
Reek of intellectual superiority and why are you trying
to be the grammar police?

Also, I have read many years ago your statements regarding
Legal definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary and how
We aren’t real human beings per the government social
Security number. I have already been down this
“Sovereign Citizen” rat hole your comments are leadings us
Down 10 years ago and guess what?

If you try to make these arguments in an IRS court or a regular court of law you get laughed at by the judge and your case gets thrown out. So why does it even matter bringing these things up? I have watched hundreds of videos of people on YouTube making arguments like these and it gets you no where.

I am not sure why you posted the wall of EGO like you did. It had nothing to do with the thread or the topic.