29 Dec 21
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/coronavirus/a-history-of-vaccine-mandate-and-how-people-reacted-then-and-now/2984174/
Can the government legally mandate a vaccine?
Yes, they can. The government has done so since at least 1904, when the right of government to impose vaccines was established by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the Court said Cambridge, Massachusetts could require all adults to be vaccinated against smallpox.
In addition, the U.S. has previously issued fines for not following vaccine mandates, like when citizens in Cambridge, Massachusetts were dying from the smallpox epidemic between 1901 and 1903, and the state issued both a mandate and a fine for not following mandates. This is in addition to vaccination mandates for children to enter school, which have been around for decades.
All these right-wingers claiming the government can't enforce mandates are wrong. U.S. government vaccine mandates have existed long before Biden was even born.
@vivify saidJacobson has been discussed many times on this board. I'll dm you the link to a presentation I did on this issue almost a year ago in case you're interested.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/coronavirus/a-history-of-vaccine-mandate-and-how-people-reacted-then-and-now/2984174/
[b]Can the government legally mandate a vaccine?
Yes, they can. The government has done so since at least 1904, when the right of government to impose vaccines was established by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the C ...[text shortened]... mandates are wrong. U.S. government vaccine mandates have existed long before Biden was even born.
The one major difference is that the penalty in the Jacobson case was a fine of $5 (about $150 today). That's miniscule compared to losing your job.
But if your point is that there is precedent for vaccine mandates, in general, you are correct.
29 Dec 21
@sh76 saidthe penalty was 5$ because too few people thought about skipping the freakin polio vaccine.
Jacobson has been discussed many times on this board. I'll dm you the link to a presentation I did on this issue almost a year ago in case you're interested.
The one major difference is that the penalty in the Jacobson case was a fine of $5 (about $150 today). That's miniscule compared to losing your job.
But if your point is that there is precedent for vaccine mandates, in general, you are correct.
what happened to vietnam draft dodgers, hmm?
29 Dec 21
@sh76 saidYou know full well that the majority opinion stated that a fine and/or imprisonment could be imposed on those violating a vaccine mandate. The amount of the fine was immaterial to the Court's decision.
Jacobson has been discussed many times on this board. I'll dm you the link to a presentation I did on this issue almost a year ago in case you're interested.
The one major difference is that the penalty in the Jacobson case was a fine of $5 (about $150 today). That's miniscule compared to losing your job.
But if your point is that there is precedent for vaccine mandates, in general, you are correct.
Imprisonment is surely a more serious penalty then loss of employment.
@no1marauder saidAs I said last time this came up, the "imprisonment" in that case was for failing to pay the fine.
You know full well that the majority opinion stated that a fine and/or imprisonment could be imposed on those violating a vaccine mandate. The amount of the fine was immaterial to the Court's decision.
Imprisonment is surely a more serious penalty then loss of employment.
From the case:
The Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that
"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars."
The statute did not provide for imprisonment as a penalty and so the Court was not required to take a position on that issue. The throw-in of the term "imprisonment" does not prove that the same result would have been rendered if the statute had called for long prison terms in the first instance.
At best, it's speculative dicta. It's certainly not precedent.
In November, 2020, in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Court read Jacobson quite narrowly.
Finally, consider the different nature of the restriction. In Jacobson, individuals could accept the vaccine, pay the fine, or identify a basis for exemption. Id., at 12, 14. The imposition on Mr. Jacobson’s claimed right to bodily integrity, thus, was avoidable and relatively modest. It easily survived rational basis review, and might even have survived strict scrutiny, given the opt-outs available to certain
objectors. Id., at 36, 38–39. Here, by contrast, the State has effectively sought to ban all traditional forms of worship in affected “zones” whenever the Governor decrees and for as long as he chooses. Nothing in Jacobson purported to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting intrusions into settled constitutional rights.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
@sh76 saidThere is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, in Jacobson remotely suggesting that the amount of the fine had anything to do with the decision on the merits. The Court specifically stated:
As I said last time this came up, the "imprisonment" in that case was for failing to pay the fine.
From the case:
The Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that
"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabit ...[text shortened]... ed constitutional rights.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
"It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health."
And:
"Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. "
Whether "long prison terms" would be a proper penalty for violating a vaccine mandate is quite irrelevant; the Biden "mandate" does not rely on "long prison terms" but only that an employee who refuses to be vaccinated be removed from his position where he can spread a deadly, communicable disease. In short, the consequences of his action are tightly tailored to the purpose of the vaccination requirement.
Your reasoning is typically poor. IF the mandate is overturned, it will be on the grounds that the statute creating OSHA did not allow this type of regulation, not that anything but a small fine is an inappropriate penalty for the violation of otherwise valid health and safety rules.
EDIT: You might want to study Klaassen v. Indiana University. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-02/C:21-2326:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:op:N:2741753😕:0
There the Seventh Circuit upheld a requirement that all students at Indiana University be vaccinated unless they had a medical or religious exemption. Subsequently, " [SCOTUS Judge Amy Coney} Barrett on Thursday summarily denied a request to block the vaccine mandate from eight students who said their constitutional rights were being violated." https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-justice-leaves-university-vaccine-mandate-intact
I see little difference between excluding someone from a job and excluding them from a college education as far as the legal principles involved.
@vivify saidYou omitted something important. Exemptions.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/coronavirus/a-history-of-vaccine-mandate-and-how-people-reacted-then-and-now/2984174/
[b]Can the government legally mandate a vaccine?
Yes, they can. The government has done so since at least 1904, when the right of government to impose vaccines was established by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the C ...[text shortened]... mandates are wrong. U.S. government vaccine mandates have existed long before Biden was even born.
Vaccine exemptions are as American as mandates.....at least until recently.
Now it was used to attempt to obstruct congressmen to vote in congress!
Bill Gates laughed like a maniacal turd when asked if he supported denying people social security if they didn't get the gene vaccine.
https://rumble.com/vrio1e-bill-gates-laughs-at-punishing-the-unvaccinated.html
Keep in mind that not all covid vaccines are gene vaccines. What if I decided to go to Mexico to get the Sinopharm vaccine made in China or the Cuban vaccine? Would I be all good as far as Gates is concerned? He doesn't own stock in those vaccines, does he?
I'll bet he would have problem with the Sinoparm jab. Somebody should ask the evil creep.
@metal-brain saidProbably Bill Gates would laugh at that stupid question, like he laughed at the stupid question you mentioned.
You omitted something important. Exemptions.
Vaccine exemptions are as American as mandates.....at least until recently.
Now it was used to attempt to obstruct congressmen to vote in congress!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C6V0H0AaPc
Bill Gates laughed like a maniacal turd when asked if he supported denying people social security if they didn't get the gene ...[text shortened]... oes he?
I'll bet he would have problem with the Sinoparm jab. Somebody should ask the evil creep.
30 Dec 21
@dood111 saidAs "odd" as the conservatives not giving even the tiniest little damn for their fellow Americans.
Isn't it odd that the libbies support forcing people to get vaccinations, but are dead set against requiring people to have an ID to vote?
@no1marauder saidThat is not why he laughed.
Probably Bill Gates would laugh at that stupid question, like he laughed at the stupid question you mentioned.
You obviously didn't watch the video.
I suppose you think congress was not temporarily prevented from voting on bills because of vaccine status. Democrats assaulted democracy. Fortunately they failed, but they tried.
https://rumble.com/vrmkld-kim-iversen-show-me-your-papers-becoming-more-commonplace-in-vaccine-mandat.html
If I asked you a week ago if congress would be temporarily prevented from voting on bills because of vaccine status you would have said that was a stupid question too, but here we are. Your heroes tried just that.