Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts

[g5000]

You can't enforce something that's unconstitutional.

And?

 

[Skylar]

"1 in 500 people in 18 months"

Let's review, shall we?

I take it from yet another attempt to change the topic, your strained 'sanctuary city' analogy didn't work out for you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Um...you might want to look up what the H in OSHA stands for, skippy.

OSHA regulates health and safety practices in businesses, not the general public.

Pay attention!

 

[Skylar]

You can't enforce something that's unconstitutional.

Isn't constitutional.....according to who?

Again, this is where you arguments always break. As your answer is you, citing you. And mine is the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution.

Shall we review Federalist 78 again? As It definitely picks a team in the 'Templar v. the Supreme Court' contest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I take it from yet another attempt to change the topic, your strained 'sanctuary city' analogy didn't work out for you?

It does. Very much so.

I take it your snide remarks can only mean you had no sufficient rebuttal to that analogy?

 

[Rogue AI]

Um...you might want to look up with the H in OSHA stands for, skippy.

Then by all means show me OSHA's legislative authority to do as some are demanding.

Perhaps you should check what the O stands for, here's a hint, it's not Public.

 

[g5000]

OSHA regulates health and safety practices in businesses, not the general public.

Pay attention!

Biden's mandate applies to businesses with more than 100 employees!

I think you are the one who needs to pay attention.

 

[Skylar]

OSHA regulates health and safety practices in businesses, not the general public.

Pay attention!

Given that we're discuss a vaccine mandate for certain businesses.......you may want to focus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Isn't constitutional.....according to who?

Roe v. Wade.

How many times must I say this?

Again, this is where you arguments always break. As your answer is you, citing you. And mine is the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution.

Actually, I also have been citing the very same things. Federalist papers, USSC case law and precedent and etc.

The only thing that differs is our interpretation.

Nice try, though.

 

[Skylar]

It does. Very much so.

I take it your snide remarks can only mean you had no sufficient rebuttal to that analogy?

This thread is littered with arguments you've made and abandoned. If even you are going to treat your pseudo-legal claims like meaningless garbage to be discarded, surely you'll understand why I treat them the same way.

Sanctuary Cities, regulatory agencies not being constitutional, regulatory agencies not being allowed to make regulation, the federal government lacking the authority to create OSHA....all abandoned. Its a graveyard of why your arguments don't work.

 

[Skylar]

Roe v. Wade.

How many times must I say this?




Actually, I also have been citing the very same things. Federalist papers, USSC case law and precedent and etc.

The only thing that differs is our interpretation.

Nice try, though.

Can you quote Roe V. Wade saying that businesses can't require vaccines for deadly pandemics or weekly testing as a condition of employment?

Because pregnancy isn't airborne or contagious either. Nor is abortion. Nor is either employment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Shall we review Federalist 78 again? As It definitely picks a team in the 'Templar v. the Supreme Court' contest.

Sure!

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Shall we keep going with your childish repostes?

 

[Skylar]

Actually, I also have been citing the very same things. Federalist papers, USSC case law and precedent and etc.

The only thing that differs is our interpretation.

Nice try, though.

And where did the USSC find that OSHA is unconstitutional? That regulatory agencies lack the authority to make regulation? That regulatory agencies can't report to the Executive?

That's not the Supreme Court. That's just you making up more pseudo-legal nonsense.

You're not quoting the supreme court. You're quoting you. And your source is insuffecient to carry your argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you quote Roe V. Wade saying that businesses can't require vaccines for deadly pandemics or weekly testing as a condition of employment?

Because pregnancy isn't airborne or contagious either. Nor is abortion. Nor is either employment.

Look at you, moving the goalposts.

Abortion has been dubbed a decision regarding the health of the woman making said decision.

To vaccinate or not is also a decision regarding the health of the person, is it not? So if the states cannot regulate one healthcare choice, according to Roe, then isn't it also true that states cannot forcibly regulate whether or not a person chooses to take a vaccine?

Or are you having trouble making the correlation here?

 

[Skylar]

Sure!

Sounds great!

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Federalist 78

Yeah, I don't see you mentioned there. You're not 'the People'. You're not the legislative, you're not the judiciary.

Your determinations of 'unconstitutionality' cite just you. While the courts have either contradicted you, or don't back up your pseudo-legal claims.

 

[Lesh]

Isn't constitutional.....according to who?

Again, this is where you arguments always break. As your answer is you, citing you. And mine is the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution.

Shall we review Federalist 78 again? As It definitely picks a team in the 'Templar v. the Supreme Court' contest.

According to the Supreme Court...as stated in the OP

 

[Skylar]

Look at you, moving the goalposts.

Abortion has been dubbed a decision regarding the health of the woman making said decision.

To vaccinate or not is also a decision regarding the health of the person, is it not? So if the states cannot regulate one healthcare choice, according to Roe, then isn't it also true that states cannot forcibly regulate whether or not a person chooses to take a vaccine?

Or are you having trouble making the correlation here?

And by moving the goal posts, you mean asking you to show us where Roe V. Wade determines vaccine mandates as terms of employment are forbidden?

Color me shocked that you couldn't cite Roe doing any of that. Its just you, once again citing you

 

[Skylar]

According to the Supreme Court...as stated in the OP

The OP says no such thing. Nor does Jacobson.

What are you talking about?

 

[Lesh]

The OP says no such thing. Nor does Jacobson.

What are you talking about?

Yea it does.

On what basis are you claiming otherwise?

 

[Skylar]

Templar, I'm still waiting for you to show us where the courts have found that OSHA is unconstitutional, that regulatory agencies can't create regulation, and that regulatory agencies can't report to the Executive.

I'm gonna be waiting a long, long time, aren't I?