Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

The Pentagon is bringing it on in Texas.

Pentagon Orders Texas Contractors to Mandate Vaccines for Employees, Despite Governor’s Ban
The Defense Department says the federal contractor vaccine order supersedes state laws. www.govexec.com...

The Pentagon’s position is important because thousands of employees working for all of the major defense contractors operate in Texas. The aerospace and defense industry employs more than 148,000 in the state, according to the Texas Economic Development Corporation.

Federal contractors must be vaccinated by Dec. 8 unless they receive a medical or religious exemption.

Raytheon Technologies, which last month said it would require all of its employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19, says as much on its job openings website.

“With employee health and safety as our top priority, Raytheon Technologies is taking action to address the increased risk and uncertainty COVID variants pose in the workplace,” the company states. “Effective November 15, 2021, we will require all newly hired employees in the United States to be fully vaccinated before their start date.”

Earlier this week, Boeing told its 125,000 employees that they must get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Q: Does this clause apply in States or localities that seek to prohibit compliance with any of the workplace safety protocols set forth in the Task Force Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors?

A: Yes. These requirements are promulgated pursuant to Federal law and supersede any contrary State or local law or ordinance. Additionally, nothing in the Task Force Guidance shall excuse noncompliance with any applicable State law or municipal ordinance establishing more protective workplace safety protocols than those established under the Task Force Guidance.

www.saferfederalworkforce.gov...

American Airlines and Southwest, both based in Texas, says they'll still mandate COVID-19 vaccines despite Gov. Abbott's order www.businessinsider.com...

Your move Gov. Abbott.

What I think is the most sad part about this issue...the winner in this specific discussion will be the one that carries more punitive damage law suit wise....which if the discussion gets to this point, uh, it doesn't really sound like "emergency" measures for public health.

I mean, if your trying to figure out who pays damages x-years down the road it kind of squashes any argument about this still being an "emergency".....right?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I say discussion because nothing will ultimately come of this in either direction. Its theater. Texas is an at will state, they can fire you for anything anyway...this is just Biden and Abbot hitting some low hanging fruit for press time, in 6 moths this will be forgotten quicker than you can say "George Floyd".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TzarChasm

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.

Well a lot of people file a constitutional case in the wrong court. Many people try to file constitutional cases at their county or state Superior courts. Those judges can only rule on each state's individual constitutions and technically can't make a ruling on the federal constitution. Then the Appeals go to the lower courts or State Supreme courts. Once again state courts generally can only rule on an individual state's constitution.

Finding attorneys that practice constitutional law is difficult. Many inexperienced attorneys offer to file, but don't know what they are doing and file in the wrong lower courts.

A real constitutional attorney will know that the first move is to file an INJUNCTION in a Federal Court. The federal judge grants temporary injunction to allow time for preparation of case. A temporary injunction prevents enforcement of a law or order or mandate until a case can be heard. Once the case is heard, the federal judge can either rule to make the injunction permanent or to lift the injunction.

Then starts the Appeals process if either party is dissastified. Appeals go to the District Circuit Courts which are assigned by region. The Circuit Courts have 3 judges that rule on Injunctions.

If either party is disatisfied by the ruling of a Circuit Court, then the case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling.

a reply to: MapMistress

There are many different ways to get a Federal Injunction against Biden's Vaccine Mandate. Some are being tried in the courts and others I haven't seen filed just yet. The more numerous different angles in which Injunctions get granted, the weaker the mandate becomes.

Here's some different ways to get a Federal Injunction against Biden's mandate.
-------

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Biden's mandate is unconstitutional because it violates Freedom of Religion. Different angles: People might be religiously opposed to the use of aborted tissue and cells used to make vaccines. People might have the religious belief to refuse modern medicine (Christian Scientists, Amish, Mennonites, other individual Christian beliefs). People might object to animal testing or animal cells if Vegan.
_______

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A federal injunction can be granted on the premise of the right for people to be secure in their persons a.k.a. bodily autonomy. Going a little further one could say that Biden's mandate is a seizure of citizens bodies for medical experimentation. Plus he is requiring papers to prove vaccination. If someone does not have papers to prove vaccination, then by Biden's mandate, their job is seized or their federal contracts are seized.

_______

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Haven't seen anyone use this one yet, but it could be used to get a federal injunction. Biden's vaccine mandate disparages rights of those with natural immunity. And those with natural immunity are being denied entry into restaurants, stores, to buy food and necessities.

So for any ruling in a federal court that tries to uphold the 1905 vaccine ruling, those cases can be appealed on these grounds.
______

AMENDMENT X

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.

Biden's vaccine mandate can be placed under injunction because of a matter of States' rights v. Presidential power of the Executive Branch. Some states already arguing.

States have rights over their own schools. Not the Executive Branch of the government.

Fact is the Constitution has never granted the Executive Branch rights nor jurisdiction over the bodies of every U.S. Citizen. That is simply not a granted power of the Constitution to the Executive Branch.
_____

AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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.

A federal injunction can be granted on this by arguing several different ways. Biden's mandate requires states to deny equal protection of the law against those with natural immunity to Covid. They treat the naturally immune different.

Those refuse the vaccine are not treated with equal protection. Those vaccinated must only show a card proving vaccination. Those unvaxxed are subjugated to constant Covid testing. When the vaccinated can still catch and spread Covid but no testing is required of them. Equal Protection under the law means BOTH the vaccinated and the unvaccinated must be required to weekly testing OR neither group can be tested weekly. What is requested of one group must be required of the other under equal protection clause.

Specifically states can automatically refuse to enforce Biden's vaccine mandate under this amendment. The Amendment blantantly says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

So Biden's mandate literally refuses equal protection under the law to those with natural immunity. In this aspect, the 1905 smallpox ruling becomes somewhat moot. Even in the 1905 case, if someone recovered from smallpox in a hospital, they were NOT injected with cowpox afterward because their natural immunity was recognized.

Biden's crew refuses to acknowledge natural immunity. Quite literally the mandate abridges the immunities of U.S. Citizens as the Biden administration refuses to acknowledge natural immunity and hospitals aren't really offering natural immunity cards to those who have recovered. And those who recovered from Covid at home are not offered a proper immunity test. And those who have antibody tests are being ignored. Even still many with long term immunity who test negative for antibodies are not offered memory t-cell tests to show long term immunity.

There are so many angles on this Amendment to get multiple federal injunctions on Biden's mandate.

a reply to: MapMistress

Good synopsis. I touched on several of those, but you brought up a few I hadn't considered.

It seems most of those arguing that Biden's mandate is law are a bit misinformed about how the law actually works; that was why I put up the synopsis of the different branches of law. Your synopsis of the various arguments adds to that. Hopefully some people will recognize their need for more information and study up on what we have presented.

TheRedneck

My employer states that Biden's pen is mightier than Texas as well.

posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ME

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?

YOU

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

UPDATE:
Texas made a move:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration over the vaccine mandate for federal contractors.

The complaint asks a federal court in Galveston to declare the vaccine mandate unlawful, and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring the mandate from being enforced.

The lawsuit says the administration is “using subterfuge to accomplish what they cannot achieve directly—universal compliance with their vaccine mandates, regardless of individual preferences, healthcare needs, or religious beliefs.”

“Defendants effectively claim for themselves a general police power to control American life, infringing on states’ sovereignty and usurping the powers reserved to the states under the Constitution,” the suit continues.

thehill.com...

It's about to get interesting, again.

I like simple matters. So let’s do some simple questions.

Remember when the J & J vaccine had the EUA status pulled due to a few people dying for a little bit, maybe a week? Was there a a reformulation of the product within that short downtime that was submitted and approved during that maybe a week?

Does anyone have “the authority” to force someone else by any sort of coercion to take something that could indeed kill them because it has killed others?

But even more simple than that is the good old Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Article IV, Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Simply put, an Executive Order by the POTUS is not an act of Congress and does not carry the force of law. The POTUS cannot just up and declare that you are married and force Texas to accept it.

So, simply put, your vax status and availability to work isn’t an enumerated power of the POTUS either.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I think it gets a little more complicated when we're talking about a presidential executive order for federal contractors and subcontractors. For example, Trump's gag order EO on abortion referrals for all Medicare providers was in effect until Biden reversed it through another EO.

ETA
And, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe we are still under "national emergency" status.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No. It is pretty damn simple. Forced sterilizations happened on Indian Reservations well into the 1970’s. Often without consent nor informing the women. The last commonly agree upon one was in Oregon in 1981. And you can even find SCOTUS case with an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the practice as a State’s Right somewhere around 1927. Today we find it barbaric and worthy of the death penalty. But perfectly “legal” at the time.

Still a medical procedure forced unto people. Is that any different than the vax? Really? Keep in mind the J & J could kill you because it was never reformulated. (The others can too, just they never suspended them. And will not talk about it.)

a reply to: Ahabstar

Now you're arguing something that already been settled law. SCOTUS has upheld state enforced vaccine mandates. Not to mention the military vaccine mandates.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Except that you are using old decisions to support your point, despite more modern decisions that counter that old point.

They cannot harvest your organs unless you are an organ donor.
You can’t be forced to give blood to a transfusion.
Even DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders have levels of care that can be performed that you can specify ahead of time.

The 3/5 law and Fugitive Slave Act were upheld for years, until they were not. Doesn’t make either of them right.

Why you support forcing things on others that can kill them is beyond me. But if Joe mandates playing Russian Roulette with a semi-auto, I am not rushing to go first.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Except that you are using old decisions to support your point, despite more modern decisions that counter that old point.

Just yesterday SCOTUS upheld Maine's vaccine mandate on health care workers.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Is what it is, I suppose. Abusing the freedoms of others is tyranny. No two ways about it. People want to risk it, so be it. You should have zero to worry about since you have the vax, right? Not like crime doesn’t run rampant among those disenfranchised from society, right? Talk about community building.

Making new have nots to prey upon the haves. Great policy.

a reply to: Ahabstar

It is what it is, but all hope is not lost. This time the courts have to decide if the federal vaccine mandates, aka Biden's Executive Order during a National Emergency, supersedes Texas', and Florida's, vaccine mandates prohibitions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Just yesterday SCOTUS upheld Maine's vaccine mandate on health care workers.

That's not true.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case about Maine's vaccine mandate. That is not the same thing as upholding it.

However, it does send a signal. The case in Maine concerned a state mandate. By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court allowed the decisions of lower courts to prevail, in which Maine won their case. That sends the signal that the justices did not see a significant flaw in the lower courts' rulings that a state had the authority to mandate a vaccine.

I disagree with those rulings on the basis of the right self-autonomy, but they are what they are.

The one thing I agree with, and is implied by the refusal to consider the case, is that the subject of vaccine mandates is purely a state right. We do not have a single all-powerful government in the USA. We have some powers that belong to the Federal government, some that belong to the states, and a few that are shared. A state may not infringe on a Federal power, and the Federal government may not infringe on a state's power.

You may not understand that, you may not like that, but that is how it is. Maine cannot overrule a Federal immigration law; the Federal government cannot overrule a Maine law on vaccine mandates. At most, the Federal government may step in if people's rights are being violated. That's where I disagree with the vaccine mandates.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

However, it does send a signal. The case in Maine concerned a state mandate. By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court allowed the decisions of lower courts to prevail, in which Maine won their case. That sends the signal that the justices did not see a significant flaw in the lower courts' rulings that a state had the authority to mandate a vaccine.

Rights, as in, "this is pretty much settled law".

The one thing I agree with, and is implied by the refusal to consider the case, is that the subject of vaccine mandates is purely a state right.

Well, I don't see this decision implying any such thing. But we will see when "Texas V Biden's EO" does reach SCOTUS. In the meantime, I'll be watching this case wind its way through the courts.

You may not understand that, you may not like that, but that is how it is.

I understand that I already said..."It is what it is, but all hope is not lost. This time the courts have to decide if the federal vaccine mandates, aka Biden's Executive Order during a National Emergency, supersedes Texas', and Florida's, vaccine mandates prohibitions."

We'll see if the courts understand that as pragmatically as you. I believe this case is trickier than you think.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Rights, as in, "this is pretty much settled law".

Yes, it is pretty much "settled law" that states control medical issues.

Well, I don't see this decision implying any such thing.

And now you disagree with your previous statement.

Law does not depend in any way, shape, form, or fashion on what you want it to say. It is what it is. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you will stop making contradictory statements.

We'll see if the courts understand that as pragmatically as you. I believe this case is trickier than you think.

You've been given the precedents, you've been quoted the US Constitution... I guess you will simply continue to believe whatever you want regardless of any contradictory information.

I call that "brainwashed," but I doubt you will believe that too.

TheRedneck

Good for Texas. Iowa also just passed a law against masks and vaccine mandates. Allowing workers that get fired to get unemployment benefits.