[W:225]LA Bars and Restaurants Begin Turning Away Unvaccinated Customers

[Ginger Ale]

States can require it on a state level for CHILDREN. Businesses - as private enterprises - may require it of employees or even those that choose to enter their facility. But neither are on a federal level. We can't make a national mandate that requires people to get a needle stuck in their arm, any more than we can require every citizen be virtually trackable, like Red China. It flies in the face of the Constitution. Thanks!!

Veterans healthcare. Fed. government just mandated all healthcare workers to be vaccinated.

 

[Hamish Howl]

States can require it on a state level for CHILDREN. Businesses - as private enterprises - may require it of employees or even those that choose to enter their facility. But neither are on a federal level. We can't make a national mandate that requires people to get a needle stuck in their arm, any more than we can require every citizen be virtually trackable, like Red China. It flies in the face of the Constitution. Thanks!!

WRONG.

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

 

[Logophile]

Ginger, you just put your comment as a quote by me in response to me. If you can fix it, great, my response will make more sense. Otherwise, here we go and I'll try to recap.

You said this: veterans healthcare. Fed. government just mandated all healthcare workers to be vaccinated.

And I'm saying So?? No surprise. That's because technically they are all employees. There is however, no FEDERAL ability to require all citizens of the United States to be vaccinated against anything, not even a zombie bite. We don't do that kind of thing here. That's for Red China. Thanks!!

 

[Logophile]

WRONG.

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

First of all, it's a STATE, not the Federal Government. Second of all, he paid a FINE. Nobody forcibly held him down. And then there's this:


Instead, the permissive Jacobson rule floats about in the air as a rubber stamp for all but the most absurd and egregious restrictions on constitutional liberties, free from the inconvenience of meaningful judicial review. This may help explain why the Supreme Court established the traditional tiers of scrutiny in the course of the 100 years since Jacobson was decided. {The Supreme Court has had good cause to do so, including the experience of two World Wars. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) ("History tells us of far too many iPnstances where the Executive or Legislative Branch took actions during time of war that, on later examination, turned out unnecessarily and unreasonably to have deprived American citizens of basic constitutional rights." (Breyer, J., dissenting)).} Although Jacobson reflects that, when one weighs competing interests in the balance, the presence of a major public health crises is a very heavy weight indeed and scientific uncertainties about the best response will afford the state some additional leeway to err on the side of caution, it does not provide the standard of review for this case. Civil libertarians may question whether it ought to provide the standard of review in any case. But perhaps that depends on whose ox is being gored.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

There isn't a group of people or lawmakers in this country today that could ever or even attempt to nationally force vaccinations. And the case you cite is so egregiously unConstitutional that it's laughable. It's just that nobody has ever needed to overturn it since it's not only obscure but utterly lacking legal merit. Only an idiot would use it to defend a dictate, like the idiot in Maine. In other words, it's bs and most legal scholars recognize it. It would never hold up today which is WHY it has no legs. There are all kinds of stupid state laws and stupid state overreach. There's a state law prohibiting drinking alcohol on Sunday, and another mandating how a woman should dress, but they are not only not enforced, they aren't even recognized in the 21st century. Give it a break. Thanks!!

 

[Hamish Howl]

First of all, it's a STATE, not the Federal Government. Second of all, he paid a FINE. Nobody forcibly held him down. And then there's this:Plaintiffs also correctly point out that Jacobson has been thoughtfully criticized by legal scholars for lacking in limiting principles characteristic of legal standards. Lindsay Wiley & Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: The Case Against "Suspending" Judicial Review, 133 HARV. L. REV. F. at p. 4 (forthcoming 2020); see also Ilya Somin, The Case for "Regular" Judicial Review of Coronavirus Emergency Policies, THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY (Apr. 15, 2020, 4:16 PM), https://reason.com/2020/04/15/the-case-for-normal-judicial-review-of-coronavirus- emergency-policies ("imposing normal judicial review on emergency measures can help reduce the risk that the emergency will be used as a pretext to undermine constitutional rights and weaken constraints on government power even in ways that are not really necessary to address the crisis.").Instead, the permissive Jacobson rule floats about in the air as a rubber stamp for all but the most absurd and egregious restrictions on constitutional liberties, free from the inconvenience of meaningful judicial review. This may help explain why the Supreme Court established the traditional tiers of scrutiny in the course of the 100 years since Jacobson was decided. {The Supreme Court has had good cause to do so, including the experience of two World Wars. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) ("History tells us of far too many iPnstances where the Executive or Legislative Branch took actions during time of war that, on later examination, turned out unnecessarily and unreasonably to have deprived American citizens of basic constitutional rights." (Breyer, J., dissenting)).} Although Jacobson reflects that, when one weighs competing interests in the balance, the presence of a major public health crises is a very heavy weight indeed and scientific uncertainties about the best response will afford the state some additional leeway to err on the side of caution, it does not provide the standard of review for this case. Civil libertarians may question whether it ought to provide the standard of review in any case. But perhaps that depends on whose ox is being gored.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

There isn't a group of people or lawmakers in this country today that could ever or even attempt to nationally force vaccinations. And the case you cite is so egregious that it's laughable. It's just that nobody has ever needed to overturn it since it's not only obscure but utterly lacking legal merit. Only an idiot would use it to defend a dictate, including the idiot in Maine. In other words, it's bs and most legal scholars recognize it. It would never hold up today which is WHY it has no legs. There are all kinds of stupid state laws and stupid state overreach. There's a state law prohibiting drinking alcohol on Sunday, and another mandating how a woman should dress, but they are not only not enforced, they aren't even recognized in the 21st century. Give it a break. Thanks!!

You don't gotta hold 'em down. You just let the fines pile up. Maybe have them double weekly.

 

[Logophile]

You don't gotta hold 'em down. You just let the fines pile up. Maybe have them double weekly.

Lol!! That didn't work out very well for King John. The Magna Carta was established given all his excessive fines. Did you know that he was so detested that there's never been another English king named John?? So in a perverse way, he kinda got the Magna Carta, but he also got dysentery. No vaccine for that, eh?? Thanks!!

 

[highroller]

There's a state law prohibiting drinking alcohol on Sunday, and another mandating how a woman should dress, but they are not only not enforced, they aren't even recognized in the 21st century

That doesn't mean they CAN'T be....

 

[Hamish Howl]

Lol!! That didn't work out very well for King John. The Magna Carta was established given all his excessive fines. Did you know that he was so detested that there's never been another English king named John?? So in a perverse way, he kinda got the Magna Carta, but he also got dysentery. No vaccine for that, eh?? Thanks!!

You're right. All the feudal landholders would object and raise their peasant levies.

 

[Logophile]

That doesn't mean they CAN'T be....

They won't be. The Florida animal parking law will never be enforced, nor will the Delaware dog hair law, nor the Indiana horse speed law that prohibits any horse from exceeding ten miles an hour. Thanks!!

 

[RAMOSS]

Where do you live; Bollocks Creek (Pop. 27)?

It seems that pattern of infection has been 'the heavily populated areas get hit first, it starts to go away there, then hits the rural areas that thought they were safe and it was a hoax.

 

[RAMOSS]

First of all, it's a STATE, not the Federal Government. Second of all, he paid a FINE. Nobody forcibly held him down. And then there's this:


Instead, the permissive Jacobson rule floats about in the air as a rubber stamp for all but the most absurd and egregious restrictions on constitutional liberties, free from the inconvenience of meaningful judicial review. This may help explain why the Supreme Court established the traditional tiers of scrutiny in the course of the 100 years since Jacobson was decided. {The Supreme Court has had good cause to do so, including the experience of two World Wars. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) ("History tells us of far too many iPnstances where the Executive or Legislative Branch took actions during time of war that, on later examination, turned out unnecessarily and unreasonably to have deprived American citizens of basic constitutional rights." (Breyer, J., dissenting)).} Although Jacobson reflects that, when one weighs competing interests in the balance, the presence of a major public health crises is a very heavy weight indeed and scientific uncertainties about the best response will afford the state some additional leeway to err on the side of caution, it does not provide the standard of review for this case. Civil libertarians may question whether it ought to provide the standard of review in any case. But perhaps that depends on whose ox is being gored.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

There isn't a group of people or lawmakers in this country today that could ever or even attempt to nationally force vaccinations. And the case you cite is so egregiously unConstitutional that it's laughable. It's just that nobody has ever needed to overturn it since it's not only obscure but utterly lacking legal merit. Only an idiot would use it to defend a dictate, like the idiot in Maine. In other words, it's bs and most legal scholars recognize it. It would never hold up today which is WHY it has no legs. There are all kinds of stupid state laws and stupid state overreach. There's a state law prohibiting drinking alcohol on Sunday, and another mandating how a woman should dress, but they are not only not enforced, they aren't even recognized in the 21st century. Give it a break. Thanks!!

You do know the ruling was from the US Supreme Court.

 

[Logophile]

You do know the ruling was from the S

 

[Logophile]

You do know the ruling was from the US Supreme Court.

Please reread. Thanks!!

 

[911Sparky]

What are you asking?

I think he wants to know if he can ear swim trunks on his face.

 

[mrjurrs]

States can require it on a state level for CHILDREN. Businesses - as private enterprises - may require it of employees or even those that choose to enter their facility. But neither are on a federal level. We can't make a national mandate that requires people to get a needle stuck in their arm, any more than we can require every citizen be virtually trackable, like Red China. It flies in the face of the Constitution. Thanks!!

Life does not reflect your position. Are masks mandated on airlines? That's a federal mandate being implemented by private businesses. How would vaccinations be any different.

Any state program that makes use of federal funds is subject to a federal mandate (or they can refuse the fed's cash).

 

[Logophile]

Life does not reflect your position. Are masks mandated on airlines? That's a federal mandate being implemented by private businesses. How would vaccinations be any different.

Any state program that makes use of federal funds is subject to a federal mandate (or they can refuse the fed's cash).

Airlines are NOT the federal government. Airlines are businesses. They're traded on the stock exchange. The stockholders own the airlines. So airlines AS BUSINESSES have the option of adopting policies that people can either accept when they board, or find another method of transportation, like their car. A vaccination is an introduction of a foreign entity into your core yourself, your bloodstream, your organs, etc. To force a vaccine into somebody's bloodstream against his or her will is tantamount to rape. It's not like asking somebody to wear a McDonald's t shirt. That is why there is no federal insistence. It's a physical assault if it is not voluntary, and that defines it as a crime. And even if in some dystopian saga it was a federal "law," which again, will never happen, it's not going to stop the spread anyway. So it's all moot. Thanks!!

 

[mrjurrs]

Airlines are NOT the federal government. Airlines are businesses. They're traded on the stock exchange. The stockholders own the airlines. So airlines AS BUSINESSES have the option of adopting policies that people can either accept when they board, or find another method of transportation, like their car. A vaccination is an introduction of a foreign entity into your core yourself, your bloodstream, your organs, etc. To force a vaccine into somebody's bloodstream against his or her will is tantamount to rape. It's not like asking somebody to wear a McDonald's t shirt. That is why there is no federal insistence. It's a physical assault if it is not voluntary, and that defines it as a crime. And even if in some dystopian saga it was a federal "law," which again, will never happen, it's not going to stop the spread anyway. So it's all moot. Thanks!!

You are misstating the situation. Airlines are not mandating masks as private businesses. If they were, wouldn't there be one airline somewhere in America that doesn't require them? There isn't. They are requiring masks because of the federal governments ability to regulate interstate commerce.

Source for the airlines ability to defy the mask mandates?

 

[Logophile]

You are misstating the situation. Airlines are not mandating masks as private businesses. If they were, wouldn't there be one airline somewhere in America that doesn't require them? There isn't. They are requiring masks because of the federal governments ability to regulate interstate commerce.

Source for the airlines ability to defy the mask mandates?

The FAA is the regulatory agency for airlines. Here's the website: https://www.faa.gov/coronavirus/ So the FAA happily refers unvaccinated travelers to the CDC's website for RECOMMENDATIONS, but you are more than welcome to sift through all the FAA's policies to see if you can find an FAA directive. Here's the CDCs:

Recommendations For Unvaccinated People
If you are not fully vaccinated and must travel, take the following steps to protect yourself and others from COVID-19:

• Before you travel:
  • Get tested with a viral test 1-3 days before your trip.
• While you are traveling:
  • Wearing a mask over your nose and mouth is required on planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation traveling into, within, or out of the United States and while indoors at U.S. transportation hubs such as airports and stations. Travelers are not required to wear a mask in outdoor areas of a conveyance (like on open deck areas of a ferry or the uncovered top deck of a bus). CDC recommends that travelers who are not fully vaccinated continue to wear a mask and maintain physical distance when traveling.
  • Avoid crowds and stay at least 6 feet/2 meters (about 2 arm lengths) from anyone who is not traveling with you.
  • Wash your hands often or use hand sanitizer (with at least 60% alcohol).
• After you travel:
  • Get tested with a viral test 3-5 days after travel ANDstay home and self-quarantine for a full 7 days after travel.
    • Even if you test negative, stay home and self-quarantine for the full 7 days.
    • If your test is positive, isolate yourself to protect others from getting infected.
  • If you don’t get tested, stay home and self-quarantine for 10 days after travel.
  • Avoid being around people who are at increased risk for severe illness for 14 days, whether you get tested or not.
  • Self-monitor for COVID-19 symptoms; isolate and get tested if you develop symptoms.
  • Follow all state and local recommendations or requirements.
• Visit your state, territorial, tribal or localexternal icon health department’s website to look for the latest information on where to get tested.

The operative word being RECOMMENDATIONS. It's private enterprise at the helm of the mandated masks. And find your own sources, mrjurr, if you want to make a case. I have no respect for lazy posting. Thanks!!