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.
On Thursday President Biden announced a series of vaccine mandates estimated to impact up to 100 million Americans.
Many who are against this move questioned the legality of it. Legal experts, however, quickly noted that the vaccine mandates were likely to pass constitutional muster.
“There is no constitutional problem with requiring people be vaccinated. This was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1905,” Dean of Berkeley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky said, referring to Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Interesting article that covers the three areas of the mandates--the OSHA mandate about employees in the workplace, the CMS mandate covering healthcare workers, and the federal employee mandate, and outlines why these mandates are constitutional. It seems unlikely they will be overturned by any court of law.
Except when they told the world their intent was to bypass the US Constitution, and all its “harmful” language.
That is what i told my hubs last night Biden has dug a hole the demoncrats will not get out of , for the next 50 yrs if they are lucky . i totally agree with you .
Funny, isn’t it?
They were all about EOs when Trump was in the WH.
In any event, the Public Health Service Act (1944) codified federal responsibility for many areas related to public health.
And, the Supreme Court has already refused to hear at least one case related to vaccine mandates.
I’m thinking that the experts cited in the OP may know what they’re talking about.
Did Trump sign any EO that violated personal rights? I'm asking because I don't remember.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that mandating vaccines is not a violation of personal rights.
Once, over 100 years ago and for smallpox, not covid and for states, not the Federal government. That ruling is not a blank check for any and all vaccine mandates.
On Thursday President Biden announced a series of vaccine mandates estimated to impact up to 100 million Americans.
Many who are against this move questioned the legality of it. Legal experts, however, quickly noted that the vaccine mandates were likely to pass constitutional muster.
“There is no constitutional problem with requiring people be vaccinated. This was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1905,” Dean of Berkeley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky said, referring to Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Interesting article that covers the three areas of the mandates--the OSHA mandate about employees in the workplace, the CMS mandate covering healthcare workers, and the federal employee mandate, and outlines why these mandates are constitutional. It seems unlikely they will be overturned by any court of law.
They aren't constitutional and will be overturned. - Beergeek40
Last edited by BeerGeek40; 09-12-2021 at 08:09 AM..
Once, over 100 years ago and for smallpox, not covid and for states, not the Federal government. That ruling is not a blank check for any and all vaccine mandates.
I guess we’ll see if the precedent applies, won’t we?
As noted earlier, the court rejected a request to block vaccine mandates at a university in Indiana just last month.
Details:
“The trial court denied the students’ request for a preliminary injunction, and both the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit’s three-and-a-half-page decision by Judge Frank Easterbrook relied primarily on a 116-year-old case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which sustained a criminal fine for refusing to be vaccinated against smallpox in defiance of a state public health order. The Seventh Circuit explained that the case against IU was even easier than Jacobson because students with religious or medical objections “just need to wear masks and be tested,” or they can attend school somewhere that does not require vaccines. The Seventh Circuit concluded: “we do not think that the Constitution forces the distance-learning approach on a university that believes vaccination (or masks and frequent testing of the unvaccinated) will make in-person operations safe enough.””
I guess we’ll see if the precedent applies, won’t we?
As noted earlier, the court rejected a request to block vaccine mandates at a university in Indiana just last month.
Details:
“The trial court denied the students’ request for a preliminary injunction, and both the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit’s three-and-a-half-page decision by Judge Frank Easterbrook relied primarily on a 116-year-old case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which sustained a criminal fine for refusing to be vaccinated against smallpox in defiance of a state public health order. The Seventh Circuit explained that the case against IU was even easier than Jacobson because students with religious or medical objections “just need to wear masks and be tested,” or they can attend school somewhere that does not require vaccines. The Seventh Circuit concluded: “we do not think that the Constitution forces the distance-learning approach on a university that believes vaccination (or masks and frequent testing of the unvaccinated) will make in-person operations safe enough.””
Your support of forced vaccines is a support of tyranny.
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.
