Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

a reply to: Signals

i noticed the many MILLIONS of government employees (fed,state,local,+military)
that are unwilling to get vaccinated, are being threatened with not just losing
their jobs, but also , their PENSIONS.....

now, as far as i understand, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to FIRE government employees..
(this is why # floats to the top, and many bosses are idiots)
, only way to get rid of them from YOUR OFFICE, is to PROMOTE THEM.

using the MANDATES, , the democrats not only weed out the GOD fearing Christians,
and Muslims from their corrupt deceitful ranks,.. but,

LOOK AT ALL THO$E BILLION$ THEY ARE SAVING,
especially from not paying the pensions!
look at new york,.. they are even saving on SOCIAL SECURITY, by throwing all
the old folks together.

THIS IS THE GREAT RESET.
new york will be in good shape financially, got rid of half the police too (UNIONS).
got rid of half the republicans too ... not to mention hillaries grand scheme to make
the republicans poor, and her LOYAL democrats filthy rich, (like pelosi

a reply to: cappie

did it again, heres that paragraph.

but, my FIRST THOUGHT WAS,....
what a great way to crash a country, and TAKE OVER..
they have antifa, blm, and other bloodthirsty warriors from afghanistan, and
south america, all ready for war, and they will get the anti-vaxxers' gov3rnment
jobs if,...
they promise to vote democrat

a reply to: shooterbrody

In addition to that, the governor of the state of texas has blocked forced vaccines from any entity.

I am aware. That's the topic of this thread.

The thing is, as soon as OSHA published its ETS, the federal Department of Labor standards will supersede Abbott's EO. Businesses answer to the Department of Labor. So, its the Department of Labor and OSHA, that will get sued. And sued they will be.

a reply to: TzarChasm

With all due respect Mr Redneck, you wouldn't get away with that logic if you invented a rule in the Constitution without the actual text verifying your moral obligations. Even an atheist knows how to read.

Apples and oranges. The Constitution is law. Religion is not law... and literally, according to the Constitution, cannot be law! Of course, that means since religious preference cannot be law, the law cannot interfere with religion, and that includes the religious exception to medicinal interference?

The religious exception to medical intervention is based in the belief that God designed our bodies and that man interfering with that design is an abomination to God. It may not be contained in a specific verse, but it is implied in some ways throughout the Bible. The Bible is not just a collection of "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s... it is much more than that and is often subject to interpretation, especially after 6000 years.

In contrast, the US Constitution is indeed a specific list of "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s.

The contract is updated when the business holder chooses to update the contract.

Uh, no. Never in contract law is unilateral change of the terms of the contract acceptable. That is the entire premise of a contract: it is a written agreement between two parties exactly specifying what the duties and responsibilities of each party are.

If a contract can be unilaterally modified, then you better hope your mortgage company doesn't just decide to triple your monthly payments. After all, according to your theory they can do that, as long as they give you a "grace period."

If your house was riddled with asbestos that mysteriously manifested in your walls overnight, then yes.

Then no. The mortgage holder has no right to demand you make additions to your home or they will repossess. If your home has asbestos, then there may be a law that states it must be updated, but that is not your mortgage company doing anything and thus is not based in contract law.

Or perhaps a large chunk of uranium laden space rock fell out of the sky and blasted a hole in your living room and now the whole block is at risk of poisoning.

I'm not going to mention that naturally occurring uranium is not highly radioactive... it must be enriched for that to happen.

And still, like above, your mortgage holder has no right to amend the terms of your contract. Only the law can require that cleanup.

Or if your home had a severe gas leak that was spreading noxious chemicals into neighboring properties.

Again, your mortgage holder has no right to make a demand unless it is specified in the contract. Now, in any of the above cases, most mortgages state that the balance is due and payable if the home is condemned, but that is not amended to exist after you sign it. Once the contract is signed, it is what it is. It cannot be changed by either party without consent of the other.

You really need to at least read about contract law if you think I can just decide to change my payment amount without the bank agreeing or vice versa.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Signals

It is as impossible to "prove" a religious stance as it is to "prove" the existence of God in the first place. The whole point of religion is living by faith, with faith defined as "the earnest belief in something unseen." Those who seek proof of religious convictions are actually violating those religious convictions and trying to act as though they aren't.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Businesses also answer to local and state laws. This is a conflict between state and Federal jurisdiction.

Read the 10th Amendment.

TheRedneck

I think it goes to Supreme Court if Biden does vaccine mandate. Obama did a coal power plant mandate and it was blocked by Supreme Court. Trump put multiple judges on Supreme Court during his term, Chance of block Biden mandate is good.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Read the 10th Amendment.

Read the 6th Amendment. Clause 2 is the Supremacy Clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now granted, an executive order isn't a law, but carries the weight of a law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It does not resolve a states rights issue that easily. This will end up in court.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Of course. I'm just not sure what that would look like. It seems to me it's up to the employers to decide which EO they're going to go by, the president's or the governor's. So then, if a company decided ignore Abbott's EO, and to enforce Biden's EO and OSHA's rule, then will Texas sue the business?

Or. will Texas sue the Department of Labor and the Executive Office over the EO, for violating their state's rights?

Or both?

We already know that as soon as OSHA publishes their new ETS they're going to get sued by businesses from every state in the union.

Maybe Texas and some other states will go in on a class action suit against the feds over state's rights.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The 6th Amendment concerns powers which the Constitution grants to the Federal government. Medical procedures are not granted, and are not even mentioned. The 10th Amendment thus applies:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless you can find a specific reference in the Constitution to that ability of the Federal government to mandate vaccinations, that ability belongs to the individual states. If you can find such a reference, then the 6th Amendment applies.

One could make an argument that the 14th Amendment also applies:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So if I am not required to be vaccinated, then it would be illegal for any state to require that their citizens be vaccinated. If Nancy Pelosi is not required to be vaccinated, then it would be illegal for any state to require that their citizens be vaccinated.

That argument will likely not be used, as the 10th Amendment is quite clear, but it could be an argument.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So then, if a company decided ignore Abbott's EO, and to enforce Biden's EO and OSHA's rule, then will Texas sue the business?

Or. will Texas sue the Department of Labor and the Executive Office over the EO, for violating their state's rights?

Or both?

Neither.

Texas will enforce Texas law. That may include shutting down the businesses, fining them, or possibly even imprisoning officers that were responsible for the violations. Just like, if you or I violate the laws of the states where we live, our states will not require any special dispensation from the courts to arrest and punish us according to state law.

TheRedneck

Id like to add something else the government would fear if this goes to court..

the idea of "precedence" .
that is you set the standards of law/rules by what you have done in in the past.

Right now the federal government has contradictory precedence under enforcing federal laws (and to same extent regulatory rules).

you have sanctuary cities and states that REFUSE to not only follow FEDERAL immigration laws, but also REFUSE TO WORK WITH OR EVEN PASS CRIMINAL INFORMATION to them.

They have been given a clear pass and no legal actions have been taken.. Even when such refusal (as in state of IL among others) PUT IT INTO LAW.

But then when states like AZ ENFORCED such laws AND MADE LAWS THAT WERE IDENTICAL to federal immigration laws..
they got the courts to stop them...


Now they gonna scream and cry that Texas (hopefully not the only one) now REFUSES to follow covid mandates (lets be honest there is NO LAW ON THE BOOKS FOR COVID MADATES, MASKS AND VACCINATIONS) but also put it into law.

boy the lawyers for biden administration and their minions in the government agencies must be sweating bullets on this one.
because those they have to take to court are not "joe everyman" but a WHOLE STATE ... with the resources and legal talent to fight them head to head , money to money, and all the time to see it though.

this is gonna get ugly ..

scrounger

Also would add there is a LARGE NUMBER (even in blue states) of county sheriffs , local police chiefs and even some state police that have ALREADY STATED they WILL NOT ENFORCE COVID MANDATES..
That means they (but not all sadly) WILL NOT ARREST YOU or even go on the calls no matter what city/state or governor says/rants about.
Sadly not all (like city of chicago pd) but more that the press is willing to say, if they say anything at all.

the stage is set, the players are lining up and the press is turned into pravda (not being journalists but PR firms) and the people are ready to explode...

we are sadly (and pray to God im wrong) heading for some bad times to get good to come back

scrounger

a reply to: TheRedneck

We're not talking about mortgage laws, that was your bad analogy. We're talking about employer license and state health regulations upon which said license is dependent. The best approach to either of those obstacles is to inbox your governor. That's where the mandates begin and the most feasible strategy for uprooting the weed of draconian policy.

The religious exception to medical intervention is based in the belief that God designed our bodies and that man interfering with that design is an abomination to God. It may not be contained in a specific verse, but it is implied in some ways throughout the Bible. The Bible is not just a collection of "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s... it is much more than that and is often subject to interpretation, especially after 6000 years.

In contrast, the US Constitution is indeed a specific list of "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s

Which is exactly why employers don't give a damn about religious exemption when local health departments are breathing down their necks. The church can't take away your business license.

a reply to: TzarChasm

We're not talking about mortgage laws, that was your bad analogy. We're talking about employer license and state health regulations upon which said license is dependent.

We are talking about contract law. That's what employment is: a contract. As an employee, I agree to deliver services to my employer in the form of my time and any skills I may possess. In return, my employer will pay me a specified amount of money and provide any additional non-monetary benefits (insurance, retirement plans, time off, etc.).

That is a contract.

As an employee, I am still a sovereign citizen. I still maintain all the rights I am entitled to as a citizen and as a person. My employer has every right to expect me to perform the job I was hired to perform in a satisfactory manner during the time I am paid to do so, and I have every right to be paid for my time and receive any promised benefits. What I do outside my time on duty for my employer is my own business. I am not being compensated for that time, therefore it belongs to me and not to my employer.

If someone accepts a highly public position, there may be an expectation of certain public appearances to be maintained... but this must be specified in the employment contract when it is signed by both parties.

That is simply contract law. The employment contract is no different in that respect than a mortgage or a loan or a service contract.

Now, you may believe that whoever you work for owns you... if so, that is your concern. I do not. I am no one's slave and no one's property.

Which is exactly why employers don't give a damn about religious exemption when local health departments are breathing down their necks. The church can't take away your business license.

True enough, although the US Constitution has little to do with local health departments. They are governed by local laws.

Might does not make right, however. If a local health department is demanding that an employer treat their employees as property instead of abiding by their employment contract, that is called "extortion." And it is illegal, even when health departments do it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would be fascinated to see you win that lawsuit, should you decide to take that road.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What lawsuit?

To successfully bring a lawsuit, one must have standing with the court of jurisdiction. In this case, I have no such standing; I am not a citizen of Texas, and I am disabled/retired so I have no employer. I will not be bringing a lawsuit about this case between Abbot's and Biden's EOs.

As a matter of fact, it will likely be the airlines who are forced to bring the lawsuit. As I stated above to Sookiechacha, Texas does not need to bring a lawsuit in order to enforce their laws. They can simply act, be it by pulling the airlines' business license in Texas, fining the airlines, or even potential imprisonment of officials who refuse to obey Texas law. To stop such action, the airlines would have to bring a lawsuit asking for injunctive relief.

Biden could bring a lawsuit against Texas; however I cannot see that ending well. Biden would have to prove that he has legal standing with the court of jurisdiction, which requires that he or the Executive Branch of the Federal government had been injured in some way by Abbot's EO. That would bring up the jurisdiction case, which has no precedent for Federal jurisdiction but over 200 years of precedent for state jurisdiction.

Incidentally, since you brought it up...

Some time back I worked for a short time for an inventory company (thanks to Obama, there were no other jobs at the time; I was lucky to get that one). During that tenure, the inventory company I worked for (which I will not divulge) violated the provisions of their employment contracts on several occasions. I was unfortunately not in a good position to sue the company, as there were no other jobs available in this area and the lawsuit would have been more of a detriment to me than continuing to deal with the violations until I could find another job.

However, someone else did file a lawsuit, which turned into a class action case. I was invited to join that case, which I did. The company was found guilty of violating their employment contracts and ordered to pay recompense to all injured parties. As class actions typically do, the amount was less than what I likely would have gotten had I brought the case individually, but my cut was still substantial.

It wasn't over a vaccine mandate, but it was over a violation of their own employment contract provisions. It was also resolved quickly; they had no legal leg to stand on, as the court ruled that they had de facto amended the employment contracts unilaterally.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe you may be misunderstanding the various types of law; for that reason I will give a brief synopsis:

Civil Law (including contract law):

Under Civil Law, any individual may file a lawsuit; in order to be heard by a court, they must provide evidence of two things: jurisdiction and damages. This is typically stated as the person must have standing with the court that has jurisdiction over the case. A court cannot simply rule on any case that is brought before it; each court has specific jurisdiction over particular types of cases as well as a geographic area in which they operate. Monetary damages are required to be specified because no one is in danger of imprisonment during a civil trial, and these can include mental anguish, pain and suffering, etc. The court can rule that a judgement against the defendant (or the plaintiff if they also claim damages) is warranted, and the litigant awarded damages must then collect. The police are able to assist in certain specified methods to enforce a judgement, such as seizing and auctioning property. A litigant awarded damages may also enforce the judgement via liens on certain types of property. The standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that sufficient evidence exists in such abundance as to clearly indicate fault. A jury trial is not required for Civil Law, but when one is requested it is rare for a judge to declare a jury verdict improper.

This is what happens when one has a foreclosure or repossession, or when there is a property dispute, or when an employer is sued for damages.

Criminal Law:

Criminal law cases are only brought by governments. An individual cannot file a criminal case. Criminal cases can result in imprisonment or fines or both, as well as capital punishment for more severe crimes in areas which allow it. A person accused of a crime is tried under Criminal Law, and is entitled to an attorney even if they cannot afford one. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and a judge can declare a mistrial if he/she feels the jury has reached an improper decision which is not based in law. The government bringing the charges can use any legal means at their disposal to collect fines imposed by the judge, up to and including jail time for failure to pay.

This is what happens when one is accused of a crime and arrested. Should Texas decide to prosecute the airlines for violating Abbot's EO, it would be under Criminal Law. Note that the jury trial is only required if the offense is a felony under law. In addition, certain specific types of minor infractions (like traffic court) operate in many ways like a Civil Law trial, with the expectation that any imprisonment is rare and minor, and plaintiffs can easily file an appeal.

Constitutional Law:

Constitutional Law is a special branch of legal challenge that carries no fines or imprisonment. It concerns itself with the legality of laws passed and who holds jurisdiction over a specific issue. If the airlines or the DoJ were to bring a lawsuit against Texas for enforcing Abbot's EO, it would be handled as Constitutional Law. Most Federal courts deal in Constitutional Law; the Supreme Court deals exclusively in Constitutional Law. Such a case requires specialized attorneys to bring and argue the case, and unlike in other types of law where the judge[s] simply oversee the trial, judges in a Constitutional Law case can (and often do) ask direct questions of the parties involved.

Violation of the judgement rendered under Constitutional Law becomes a Criminal Law matter, enforceable by whichever legal system has jurisdiction. That is, if the court rules in favor of Biden's EO, the DoF will have jurisdiction to enforce the decision on Texas; if the court rules in favor of Texas, Texas will have jurisdiction over enforcing the decision.

Hopefully that clears up some misunderstandings.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TzarChasm
They will give a darn when they get sued into bankruptcy.
1st Amendment > some crappy job.

It may take a little time, but nobody gets to violate soneones civil rights.
You don't believe? Don't care, EVERYONE here has 1st Amendment protection.