Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts

[Rogue AI]

But closer to the real numbers than the ridiculously high one in the post I quoted. The point is that fake news needs to be outed every time, before it becomes “common knowledge”.

The real number is well over 99% survivability. It is beyond reckless to completely ignore the asymptomatics. The only reason to do so is to manipulate the data to fit the agenda.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Stare decisis is precisely what separated us from the European powers and contributed to our greatness!

No. That didn’t start until the 1830’s. As a way to work around actually ruling on the constitutional merits. Now it’s used as a way to just shit can the constitution because someone 200 years ago said so. It’s how we get Roberts rewriting obie care to be a tax while the actual obie is out there saying it isn’t. That should have been struck down point blank. You can’t mandate any citizen buy anything.

Ww have got to get back to every case I versus the constitution on its own. No matter what happened before.

 

[Skylar]

OSHA cannot constitutionally coerce people into vaccinations - Washington Examiner

President Joe Biden says he will have federal regulators make employers require workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19, or else they'll have to pay for continuous testing of the unvaccinated. That plan raises a serious constitutional problem: The federal government lacks the power to coerce...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Strawman. I never said that OSHA can coerce people to take vaccines.

I said that the existence of OSHA demonstrates the federal government's authority to regulate safety in businesses within the States. Our little armchair legal expert OKTexas insisted that the federal government lacks such authority to regulate safety or even create OSHA. Apparently because he says so.

Secondly, no one has to take a vaccine under the authority of OSHA. The individual can leave if they don't like the condition of their employment. Or the employer can pay for weekly tests. You can literally just walk away from the job if you wish.

Your op-ed pieces' attempt to apply Cruz is laughable. As Cruz was in a persistent vegetative state. She couldn't walk away. She literally had no options in denying medical treatment. She was literally forced to receive medical care forced upon her vegetative body.

You are not in a vegetative state. You can choose not to receive the vaccine and just leave the job in question.

Finally, vegetative states caused by car accidents are neither airborne nor contagious. Nancy Cruz refusing to receive food or medical care in no way endangered ANYONE else or caused any other death. Nor is there a vaccine for a persistent vegetative state. COVID on the other hand IS airborne and contagious, can kill others as well as yourself, and does pose a threat to other people. As 1 in 500 Americans having died from COVID demonstrates tragically.

Making the application of Cruz laughably inept.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I said that the existence of OSHA demonstrates the federal government's authority to regulate safety in businesses within the States

And I said the 10th Amendment demonstrates the state's power to reject that regulation.

(A strawman this ain't.)

 

[Skylar]

LOL And what is our precedent for your opinion. Make your case.

The precedent for my opinion that the federal government has the authority to regulate safety in the several states is the existence of OSHA.

OKTexas' opinion that the federal government lacks the authority regulate safety in the several states AND lacks the authority to create OSHA is based on him saying it must be so.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[Skylar]

And I said the 10th Amendment demonstrates the state's power to reject that regulation.

(A strawman this ain't.)

Nope.

"State-run programs are required to at least meet minimum federal requirements. When a state implements its own program, it usually adopts the majority of the federal requirements verbatim. A state can adopt more stringent regulations than those required by federal OSHA if desired."

State vs. Federal OSHA – What’s the Difference When It Comes to Lockout/Tagout?

Annual state and federal fines of $8 million for lockout/tagout violations have many employers re-evaluating their lockout/tagout programs.

www.ehstoday.com

A state can enact MORE stringent safety requirements, but they can't enact less.

Its similar to the State protection of Rights. A State can protect MORE rights than are federal recognized, but they can't recognize fewer rights than are recognized by the federal government.

 

[Persuader]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Our little armchair legal expert OKTexas insisted that the federal government lacks such authority to regulate safety or even create OSHA. Apparently because he says so.

Nixon and Congress created OSHA, which answers to a cabinet-level branch of the executive. This administration was created based on a cooperative between two branches of government.

One has easily breached the power of the other, however.

The executive has subsumed the powers of the legislative branch in this case, making legislative input irrelevant in regards to control of OSHA.

That's unconstitutional. If we are to assume "co-equal" branch governance of OSHA, both branches should have equal input in what OSHA does. But that is not happening. The executive has essentially and warrantlessly assumed command of that administration, not allowing for Congress itself to make any changes to it. The executive is essentially creating its own legislation, which is again, unconstitutional.

So no, as this current arrangement stands, the Federal government does not have the authority to mandate vaccines.

Tex is right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A state can enact MORE stringent safety requirements, but they can't enact less.

Seems like the AG's of 14 states disagree with you. And they all have considerably more legal expertise than you or I do, not to mention the advice of scores of legal teams and experts.

 

[Skylar]

Nixon and Congress created OSHA, which answers to a cabinet-level branch of the executive. This administration was created based on a cooperative between two branches of government.

One has easily breached the power of the other, however.

Says who? Not the executive branch, not the legislative branch, not the judiciary.

Let me guess......you citing you again?

The executive has subsumed the powers of the legislative branch, making the legislative input irrelevant in regards to control of OSHA.

That's unconstitutional.

Says who? The courts have never found this to be true. And as Federal 78 so elegantly demonstrated, it is the courts that are delegated the authority to interpret the constitution. So who says that OSHA is unconstitutional? Again, not the executive, not the legislative, not the judiciary. And as you aren't 'the People', not the People either.

I'm gonna go out on the limb and say.......you citing yourself as the supreme legal authority again?

You should Email David Dunning and Justin Kruger. They would *love* you.

 

[Skylar]

Seems like the AG's of 14 states disagree with you. And they all have considerably more legal expertise than you or I do, not to mention the advice of scores of legal teams and experts.

Then why, pray tell, do the 22 states that have enacted their own OSHA regulations meet the minimum federal OSHA requirements? With most citing the federal OSHA requirements VERBATIM?

Grand coincidence, is it? Think of the odds!

 

[BluesLegend]

There was this pastor in Cambridge, Massachusetts named Henning Jacobson who had a very bad reaction to a vaccine when he was an infant. He had a painful rash for years.

So when, in 1904, the Cambridge board of health mandated that everyone in Cambridge get a smallpox vaccine, Jacobson went into full blown anti-vaxxer mode and refused.

The penalty for not getting the vaccine was $5.00. About $140 in today's funny money.

Jacobson had also strongly urged his son not to get the smallpox vaccine, but there was an employer mandate and so his son got the shot. His son then suffered a painful reaction which kept his arm in a sling for six months.

The Anti-Vaccination Society backed Jacobson's cause all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Like modern day anti-vaxxers, Jacobson argued that vaccines CAUSE disease and he made other dubious claims.

The Court did not allow him to have his "experts" in this spurious bullshit argue before the court.

They ruled 7-2 against Jacobson. This decision was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1922, in Zucht v. King.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection...

supreme.justia.com

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922)

Zucht v. King

supreme.justia.com

Did you get your law degree mail order? Case law since then has poked all kinds of holes in this. Most feel the court was wrong. Never mind the advancements in medical science since the times they were still using leaches to treat people. You earned a 3 talk to the hand for this OP

 

[TemplarKormac]

Its similar to the State protection of Rights. A State can protect MORE rights than are federal recognized, but they can't recognize fewer rights than are recognized by the federal government.

Let's switch gears:

You speak of precedent.

If we use that logic, for say illegal immigration, any city which proclaims itself as a "sanctuary city" and/or any state which does not stop the city(ies) from being so, are recognizing fewer requirements than commanded by federal immigration law.

The precedent already exists for states and municipalities to make themselves sanctuaries from certain federal laws. Therefore under that precedent, states can nullify OSHA policies.

The quandary is this: Either you allow for cities and states to buck federal law on immigration, and disallow states and cities from ignoring federal vaccine mandates, you disallow them from doing both, or allow them to do both.

Your argument is weakening.

 

[BluesLegend]

Biden your attempted government control of my body and the rest of your Nazi Dem brigade and the horse they rode in on.

 

[Skylar]

Let's switch gears:

You speak of precedent.

If we use that logic, for say illegal immigration, any city which proclaims itself as a "sanctuary city" and/or any state which does not stop the city(ies) from being so, are recognizing less requirements as commanded by federal immigration law.

The precedent already exists for states and municipalities to make themselves sanctuaries from certain federal laws.

Your argument is weakening.

If we're building off my comments on rights and how the states can recognize more but not less.....then you're conflating Rights and Powers. Neither the federal government nor the States have any rights. They have only powers. Only people have rights.

And the States lack the authority to violate the rights of the people. The rights of the people according to who? According to the Supreme Court interpreting the constitution of the United States.

Your 'sanctuary city' analogy has several huge flaws as it involves key distinctions that undermine your argument. The OSHA regulations don't require anything of cities. They involve private businesses.....which clearly fall under the Commerce Clause. The states (and by proxy the cities which borrow their authority) are bypassed with the regulation occurring directly between the private businesses and the federal government.

The federal government isn't even asking the state versions of OSHA (that exist in only 22 states) to do anything related to the vaccine mandate. So the lack of enforcement by the States is irrelevant as they aren't enforcing anything. Its the federal government that issues fines for OSHA violations.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And the States lack the authority to violate the rights of the people.

Of course, the same standard also applies to the federal government.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, the same standard also applies to the federal government.

Wow....you're just shedding arguments like a husky sheds hair.

With your other claims in shambles, lets address what's left: what right is being violated and according to who? Remember, you're not being forced to take a vaccine. You can just walk away from the job and refuse to take it. Or arrange weekly tests.

If you're just going to abandon this argument like you have all the others, you may be overestimating the enterainment value of watching you run.

 

[OKTexas]

You clearly have the internet where you happen to be. You can find Federalist 48 in seconds.

You're stalling.

Poor thing you seem to have missed my edit. Carry on.

.

 

[Skylar]

The strongest legal arguments against Biden's vaccine mandate in my estimation.....is going to be United States v. Morrison. As OSHA having the authority to regulate safety in the context of commerce has limits. And if the courts find that the mandate lacks suffecient commerce implications, Biden could run into the same problem that the Violence Against Women Act did.

However, given the massive impact on the economy caused by COVID, Biden is on far stronger ground than Clinton was when trying to declare violence against women a commerce issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your 'sanctuary city' analogy has several huge flaws as it involves key distinctions that undermine your argument. The OSHA regulations don't require anything of cities.

Yes, they do.

A state which employs its own version of OSHA must meet the approval of Federal OSHA. You said so yourself.

Meaning that all cities and municipalities within said states, including any private businesses or federal agencies (save volunteer fire departments) that operate therein, are subject to the minimum requirements of Federal OSHA regulations at best.

There goes that assertion.