Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Already settled by the Supreme Court with smallpox vaccines. If you can be recruited to fight in a war, you can be recruited into fighting a pandemic.
No. Already settled by the Supreme Court with smallpox vaccines. If you can be recruited to fight in a war, you can be recruited into fighting a pandemic.
Can't really understand the logic. If the vaccine is effective then all those that want the vaccine will benefit. Those who are not inoculated would not be a threat except to themselves. The entire premise of a classical liberal government is to protect a third party. Whose the 3rd party that could claim injury when refusing the vaccine?
I've never understood the so called logic of mandating vaccines. If some don't want to get them, how will that affect those who do get the vaccine? Eat off your own plate, as my mom used to say
exactly how do I affect others if I do not get the vaccine if they get it? it's another bad logic scenario so vaccine companies can get more people to get the vaccine. some are experiencing bad reactions with the new covid vaccine that is being tested.some have muscle weakness and loss of control over bladder and bowels. if that happens you can never work every again.
Last edited by justyouraveragetenant; 10-02-2020 at 04:19 PM..
I can’t keep up. Do you Trumplicans believe in herd immunity or not? Only when it suits you?
Obviously you can't keep up. Nothing to do with herd immunity. To quote from a previous poster:
"If the vaccine is effective then all those that want the vaccine will benefit. Those who are not inoculated would not be a threat except to themselves."
Can't really understand the logic. If the vaccine is effective then all those that want the vaccine will benefit. Those who are not inoculated would not be a threat except to themselves. The entire premise of a classical liberal government is to protect a third party. Whose the 3rd party that could claim injury when refusing the vaccine?
Pretty stupid legal argument.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would clarify your legal argument?
The Court's conclusion based on the legal arguments:
Quote:
The Court held that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens. Local boards of health determined when mandatory vaccinations were needed, thus making the requirement neither unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 3, 2020, from
Well I guess Korematsu v. United States made the opinion right as well because it came from the court. Time to go to camp.
it would be helpful if you could explain the constitutional basis for forcing people to do things for their "own good."
Second hand smoke has an injured 3rd party. Who is injured by refusing a vaccine? Only people who refused it.
The police power of a State embraces such reasonable regulations relating to matters completely within its territory, and not affecting the people of other States, established directly by legislative enactment, as will protect the public health and safety.
Public health and safety is specifically the protection of 3rd parties. That's what the concept means in a classical liberal government. In a National socialist government it means taking your pets to the vet so as to secure the Polish hunting grounds and hunt the wild boars.
Wow , what a fantastic argument.
...
The defendant, having been arraigned, pleaded not guilty. The government put in evidence the above regulations adopted by the Board of Health, and made proof tending to show that its chairman informed the defendant that, by refusing to be vaccinated, he would incur the penalty provided by the statute, and would be prosecuted therefor; that he offered to vaccinate the defendant without expense to him, and that the offer was declined, and defendant refused to be vaccinated. The prosecution having introduced no other evidence, the defendant made numerous offers of proof. But the trial court ruled that each and all of the facts offered to be proved by the defendant were immaterial, and excluded all proof of them.
There is a time for everything now:
Time to remove junk food.
Time to stop unnecessary travel.
Time to stop non procreative sex
Time confiscate sharp and pointy things.
Time to nail people with sniffles in their homes
Time to burn books injurious to the neural humors..
Yeah no, I think injections need to be voluntary. I have no problem with da guberment using its significant persuasive power to encourage heath and well being but they have a poor track record of doing so since fortifying white bread.
That 100 year old ruling does not mean that a vaccine can be used for anything at any time. That ruling was during a smallpox outbreak, 100 years ago.
The principle of 'Due Process' is older however still applies. Due process requires the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of government power.
Besides which, the OP presents a 'what if' scenario i.e. what if "vaccines were to be mandated". Any legal argument would depend on the circumstances, & on the specifics of the particular law. Is it unreasonable? Is it arbitrary? & so on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
