Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Thank you for mentioning McFall v. Shimp. Unlike Jacobson v. Massachusetts, it is directly applicable to the circumstances with Abbot's EO. The court has consistently upheld as well that individual freedoms also apply to employees... an employee's home may not be searched by his employer, for instance. Abbot is following the precedent of McFall v. Shimp; Biden is violating that precedent by requiring people to undergo a medical procedure against their will in order to retain their employment.

I believe quite a few hospitals across the country may also be in violation of that precedent in law.

I also find it interesting that all of the cases that specifically address medical issues are decided in state courts. When a case makes its way to Federal court, it is always, without exception, about the ability of states to pass specific laws, not about the legality of mandates. That right there should tell anyone that the mandates are a states rights issue. All the Federal courts will do is ensure that individual freedoms are not violated, as in Griswold v. Connecticut. The issue of vaccine mandates cannot be decided at the Federal level.

I find it hilarious that the poster I was speaking to has been more than adamant in the past about the right of a woman to have an abortion, defending every decision that was pro-abortion without question. And now, here she is, fighting tooth and nail against one of the cases that forms the basis for abortion rights!

(BTW, nice to hear from someone from West-by-God Virginia. I've been all over that place in a truck, one end to the other, and still have not found a single square foot of level terrain! If you guys would iron that state, it would probably be bigger than Texas!

My fondest memory was driving US460 from Virginia: As I approached the border, there was a sign that had been left there by previous road work. It simply stated "Bump Ahead." I looked ahead and all I could see was the road turning straight up as it crossed a very large mountain range. I remember thinking to myself, "Yep, I'm in West-by-God; this is what they call a 'bump.'")

TheRedneck

He said the vax is safe and effective, the best thing in the world, yet this.
I'm not too happy with this half baked politician. There's a weak spot in him

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

Sounds like big government overreach, you know, the government putting their hands on the interests of private businesses and anyone else who wishes to protect their workers.

Why do Dems manipulate this?

Banning vaccine mandates is not a government overreach. Only Dems say that when twisting things around to manipulate facts.

Government overreach is Requiring Vaccines. Government overreach is ordering businesses with 100 or more employees that they must be vaccinated or be fined. Government overreach is demanding vaccine passports to buy food in restaurants or to buy groceries at a grocery store.

Those states who have banned vaccine mandates are protecting the citizens rights.

Businesses do not have the right to demand vaccines. Fact is no business ever required flu vaccines. Not even hospitals mandated that their staff get flu vaccines. Hospitals offer flu vaccines, but they don't tell their workers that they're fired if they don't get a flu vaccine.

Businesses do not have the right to demand that people give out their medical information in order to buy necessities in a store, like food or clothing.

Hell. Even Russia isn't demanding the things that Biden is demanding. Showing "papers" hasn't been done since Nazi Germany.

And requiring this vaccine is not and never will be "protecting workers". Everyone vaccinated can still catch Covid and still spread Covid. So there's no protection at all. All those vaxxed in a workplace can still catch Covid and spread Covid to every other vaxxed worker. There's no protection with the vax. It is not a condom bubble protecting you from the air.

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: litterbaux

I can see the executive branch trying to make a Supreme Court case about it. The 10th will hopefully be upheld, then again who knows these days.

Hell yes the 10th Amendment will be upheld. The federal government is in direct violation of the 10th with the ass-clown federal government and their totalitarian head of lettuce ass-clown Biden overstepping their authority.

a reply to: GravitySucks

That’s the same definition of “choice” my sexual and emotional abusers used on me when I was a child. None of them physically pinned me down. They just made sure to fabricate “consequences” that, to my young mind, seemed worse than capitulating to their demands.

I mean this in the kindest way possible… piss off.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, the air traffic controllers had a clause in their contract which forbad them the right to strike. Reagan enforced the employment contract.

LOL...Reagan didn't use contract law as the final arbitrator to end the air trafficker's strike. He used the Taft-Hardy Act, claiming their strike was endangering public safety and national security, as a “peril to national safety”.

Nevertheless, the President of the United States had the ultimate authority over the federal government's workers.

It stated that the Constitution does not forbid states the right to enact vaccination mandates. It does not say the Federal government has such a right, nor does it say a state necessarily can enact vaccination mandates.

Sigh...That's what I said. SCOTUS upheld the state's right to mandate vaccines. On the other hand, a presidential executive order has not been tested in court. Neither has a gubernatorial EO banning vaccine mandates, in an attempt to supersede.

No, the Federal government does not have such authority. That is left to the states. It is not enumerated in the Constitution, therefore the 10th Amendment applies.

That's your opinion. Meanwhile, large corporations operating in Texas disagree and their lawyers have publicly stated they believe the president's EO supersedes Abbott's.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

President Biden has leverage over federal agencies and their employees. His executive order addressed those entities.

Does Biden own those employees' bodies?

Does the US Constitution give the Federal government power to make and enforce medical decisions?

Just answer those two questions.

TheRedneck

1) WOW! The stooopid is sooo thick!
Who owns the bodies of children forced to be vaccinated to go to public school? Who owns the bodies of the children being forced to attend public school?

Who owns the bodies of health care and public service employees that are required to get an annual flu shot? Who owns the bodies of the military personnel required to get vaccines to serve?

2) The Supremacy Clause and The Commerce Clause.


a reply to: TheRedneck

I find it hilarious that the poster I was speaking to has been more than adamant in the past about the right of a woman to have an abortion, defending every decision that was pro-abortion without question. And now, here she is, fighting tooth and nail against one of the cases that forms the basis for abortion rights!

Look at you! Wearing your hypocrisy like a badge of honor!

Unlike you and your adamant forced birther stance, I'm not fighting "tooth and nail" for or against vaccine mandates. I don't care either way. I'm just finding it amusing how Abbott thinks his EO will "one up" President Biden's. And, SCOTUS has upheld vaccine mandates to this day.

a reply to: Signals

You know I never thought id go back to America after visiting Detroit when I was 12
but the way the world is going now I may think about leaving my homeland of Scotland and moving to the great state of Texas where freedom seems to have its home.

Plus Texas seems to be the home of comedy now, most American comedians seem to be performing or moving to Texas
the kill tony show moved from LA to Texas
Joe Rogan , and I think Bert Kreischer is moving there , seems like its a movement for free speech in comedy

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't have tome to go over all this... again... with you this morning, but since you at least addressed my questions I'll hit those points:

Question: Does Biden own those employees' bodies?

1) WOW! The stooopid is sooo thick!
Who owns the bodies of children forced to be vaccinated to go to public school? Who owns the bodies of the children being forced to attend public school?

So is your answer yes, Biden owns their bodies? I'd like to be clear on this.

Question: Does the US Constitution give the Federal government power to make and enforce medical decisions?

2) The Supremacy Clause and The Commerce Clause.

Please state the Article and Section. I'd like to be clear on this.

TheRedneck

It is debatable vaccine can reduce infection rate and spread. Unvax are likely to get sick and stay home, preventing others from catching it. Vax have very little symptoms if any and when infected they will not stay home and infect others. This year cases numbers are much higher than last year. The only explanation is vax has helped the virus spread. Keep in mind the virus mainly spreads asymptotically to counter symptom warning system which humans evolved over millions of years to counter virus by warning others they are infected so stay away.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The answer to both of those questions is (with some long division involved) a simplified "no".

However the question gets a bit more complicated when you find those in society who want to both demand autonomy of their body and health as human right and access businesses which do not qualify as human rights. If you look at the discrimination laws, businesses are allowed certain discretions to protect their dignity and integrity as a service provider. This includes rejecting customers based on a number of factors that may include public indecency (like walking around in just your underwear) inebriation or unhygienic practices. There is no clause in the Constitution that protects those customers from being denied, in fact it is a state regulatory matter that can only be rectified or reinforced by the governor in charge of state level business operations.

So basically if you disagree with business practice then round up as many like-minded patriots as you can find and flood the governor's inbox with your objections. The bottom line here is all of these social and business contracts we have enjoyed for the past several decades are now being updated during a time when no one was prepared to change their way of life and the unfortunate consequence of that change is you have to choose how much modern privilege is worth to you. You want to have your cake and you want to eat it. You want to exercise your constitutional rights and you want to impose on the constitutional rights of local business who are opposed to your philosophical decisions. That relationship is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Unless of course you can quote where in the Constitution the law states that businesses must discard their local public health and safety protocols as decreed by the State health department for your satisfaction and comfort.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

CA as a sancturary state.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
a reply to: Sookiechacha

CA as a sancturary state.

Sanctuary doctrine doesn't have anything to do with Biden's and Abbott's EOs. California, et al, took the Trump Administration to court. The governor didn't try to one up Trump through executive order. He did, however, declare the whole state a sanctuary state because off Trump.

Did you know the Supreme Court upheld Sanctuary Doctrine? That means that the federal government can't force cities, counties or state governments to use state resources, facilities or personnel to do the federal government's job. So, if, for example, an undocumented alien has served their time in a state, county or city jail and is scheduled to be released, the state, city and/or country has no obligation to continue to jail, for days, weeks or months, that undocumented alien until the federal government comes to pick that prisoner up.
www.sacbee.com...
reason.com...

But, that's another thread.

A federal judge just told United Airlines they can NOT force their employees to be injected with these potentially dangerous covid-19 vaccines.

conservativebrief.com...

a reply to: TzarChasm

The answer to both of those questions is (with some long division involved) a simplified "no".

I can agree with that.

The entire argument lies with two basic principles: one, that the Constitution does not enumerate the ability of the Federal government to create or enforce medical requirements for citizens, instead leaving that in the exclusive hands of the various states, and two, that the courts have held on multiple occasions that a person cannot be forced to undergo any medical procedure in order to assist another. And that's exactly what a vaccine mandate is: a medical procedure that supposedly assists others (although this is the first vaccine I have ever heard of that affects those not vaccinated more than those who are).

Biden's EO fails on that point. He may be in charge of the various Executive offices, but he is limited in treatment of employees by the same legalities that limit anyone else who runs a business. There is no special dispensation that allows Biden, or any President, to infringe on the rights of employees.

Abbot's EO appears to be legal on the other hand. He is the Governor of Texas, and as such is allowed to exercise authority to protect the rights of those in his state. Indeed, that is not just within his authority, but is his duty. Since the issue of medical procedures is Constitutionally given to the states, as long as he is in compliance with the Texas Constitution he is acting within his legal authority.

You want to exercise your constitutional rights and you want to impose on the constitutional rights of local business who are opposed to your philosophical decisions.

I don't see that. A business has the right to run their business as they see fit, of course, but that is conditional on state laws. For example, a business cannot demand that an employee work overtime without compensation (and before you say something about salaried positions, there is no overtime on a salaried position by definition). A business cannot demand that an employee divorce a spouse they do not care for. An employer cannot force an employee to donate to a political party. An employer cannot demand an employee vote a certain way.

It comes down to whose rights take precedence when there is a conflict.

In the case of the vaccine mandates, the employee has an absolute right to religious autonomy; that is specified directly in the US Constitution, and therefore cannot be denied any person for any reason by any authority in the United States. Period. As well, a person has a right to body autonomy, as has been upheld by the courts in several states. The mandate violates both: it removes body autonomy and violates the religious beliefs of many. In contrast, the vaccine manufacturers themselves are now admitting that the vaccine will not prevent the spread of the virus. Therefore, there is no vested interest of the employers to mandate the vaccine, even assuming that the employees can be forced to undergo a medical procedure for the benefit of another.

In short, there is no right for any business to force any employee to take an injection, both because the injection does not provide a definite benefit for the company, and because it forces the employee to surrender body autonomy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

As expected.

TheRedneck

Millions march in Itally in protest to their Covid mandate and "the pass" ...and they didn't wreck anything or burn down half the place

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
A federal judge just told United Airlines they can NOT force their employees to be injected with these potentially dangerous covid-19 vaccines.

conservativebrief.com...

OSHA will be there in a minute.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Hahahaha
OSHA has punted till may 22


They don't want any of brandons purely political funk.
They also don't want to have to force flu vaccines.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust
A federal judge just told United Airlines they can NOT force their employees to be injected with these potentially dangerous covid-19 vaccines.

conservativebrief.com...

OSHA will be there in a minute.

Interesting to see who cheers on the weaponization of federal agencies.
Can't get the people behind a policy?
Can't get congress to pass a law?
There is a federal administration for that......


Rules for thee
Not for mee

a reply to: shooterbrody

Got a source for that? Because from what I'm seeing, they're moving rather quickly.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which falls under the Labor Department, has submitted the text of a new vaccine rule for large employers to the Office of Management and Budget, bringing the emergency standard announced by President Joe Biden last month one step closer to taking effect.

"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been working expeditiously to develop an emergency temporary standard that covers employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are fully vaccinated or undergo weekly testing to protect employees from the spread of coronavirus in the workplace," a Labor Department spokesman said Tuesday.

"On Tuesday, October 12, as part of the regulatory review process, the agency submitted the initial text of the emergency temporary standard to the Office of Management and Budget."
Once OMB concludes its review of the regulation, the emergency temporary standard will be published in the Federal Register, when it will go into effect.

www.cnn.com...

Interesting to see who cheers on the weaponization of federal agencies.

It's not a "cheer", it's a fact. For better or worse, Biden's EO hinges on OSHA's recommendations/rules.