Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AaarghZombies

But Trump did try to block california from bringing in regulations on fuel additives, and he amend existing legislation to prevent states from issuing protected waterway status to flood plains.

And...the state took Trump's administration to court over it. The governor didn't try to issue his own EO to override Trump's.

These mandates go against the constitution. Not only that they also go against vaccine laws that are in place.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Master/slave authority... no, he does not.

I think President Reagan proved that the president does have authority over federal workers when he ordered striking air traffic controllers back to work.

If you support the "right" of Biden to force vaccination on those under him...

I didn't say that. I said that I'm not sure his or Abbott's EO are constitutional.

Abbot is exercising his right to forbid slavery in his state.

LOL

So, I suppose measles, mumps, whooping cough (aka pertussis) and chickenpox, polio and smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, and rubella vaccine mandates are also slavery?

Dude, the Supreme Court already ruled on this in 1905. States can and do mandate vaccines. So does the federal government, military personnel already need like 17 vaccines.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Signals

Gov. Abbott is desperately pandering for votes in the upcoming gubernatorial race. I don't know why he thinks a state governor's executive order trumps a presidential executive order. I'm not sure either of them are constitutional, and Biden's admin still has yet to flesh out their OSHA regulations regarding vaccines, but SCOTUS has upheld vaccine mandates.

I just don't see this EO holding up in court.

[/quote

Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

Sounds like big government overreach, you know, the government putting their hands on the interests of private businesses and anyone else who wishes to protect their workers.

Not small government, but government overreach, government telling a small business what they can and cannot do to protect their workers and customers, which I thought so many here were against until it fits their mainstream fascist mentality.

But hypocrisy abounds...Keep your government hands away until it's something I agree with...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think President Reagan proved that the president does have authority over federal workers when he ordered striking air traffic controllers back to work.

No, the air traffic controllers had a clause in their contract which forbad them the right to strike. Reagan enforced the employment contract.

I didn't say that. I said that I'm not sure his or Abbott's EO are constitutional.

Yeah, I know. You said:

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Signals

Gov. Abbott is desperately pandering for votes in the upcoming gubernatorial race. I don't know why he thinks a state governor's executive order trumps a presidential executive order. I'm not sure either of them are constitutional, and Biden's admin still has yet to flesh out their OSHA regulations regarding vaccines, but SCOTUS has upheld vaccine mandates.

I just don't see this EO holding up in court.

But your whole argument since has been that Abbot's EO cannot override Biden's EO. Inherent in that argument is that you support Biden's EO but not Abbot's EO because Biden holds the Presidency.

If you think Biden's EO is unconstitutional, then it is completely within a governor's prerogative to oppose it.

So, I suppose measles, mumps, whooping cough (aka pertussis) and chickenpox, polio and smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, and rubella vaccine mandates are also slavery?

What job requires those vaccinations? Last I checked, only schools required them, and there are religious/personal exceptions that can be made. There is also the option of home-schooling.

Do you believe a company should be able to order its employees to have their badge number tattooed on their forehead? How about on their right arm? That's less risky than a vaccine, and both are things that cannot be undone when the employee leaves their job.

Who owns the employee's body, Sookiechacha? Answer that one simple question.

Dude, the Supreme Court already ruled on this in 1905. States can and do mandate vaccines.

That would be Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. You seem quite ignorant of what it said. It stated that the Constitution does not forbid states the right to enact vaccination mandates. It does not say the Federal government has such a right, nor does it say a state necessarily can enact vaccination mandates. The argument that failed court muster was that the Preamble of the US Constitution forbad states from enacting, through legislation, vaccine mandates. It is up to the state constitutions and the state legislatures if they so choose to enact such mandates.

You might try reading the actual decisions.

So does the federal government, military personnel already need like 17 vaccines.

No, the Federal government does not have such authority. That is left to the states. It is not enumerated in the Constitution, therefore the 10th Amendment applies.

As for the military, those personnel chose to become military, which means they are under Federal jurisdiction only. That's a special case which has no bearing on the civilian public.

TheRedneck

No one is forcing anyone to take a vaccine.

No one's chasing anyone down in the street, holding them down, and jabbing them.

They are forcing people to make a choice, yes, but no on is forcing anyone to take a vaccine.

The companies are giving people a choice. The government is giving people a choice.

Trouble is, some people don't like the consequences of their choice. No ifs, ands, or buts.

ETA: American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, both based out of Texas, are not backing down.

a reply to: TheRedneck

But your whole argument since has been that Abbot's EO cannot override Biden's EO. Inherent in that argument is that you support Biden's EO but not Abbot's EO because Biden holds the Presidency.

That's just a fact. It's not an argument for or against Biden's EOs. with one of his own.

If you think Biden's EO is unconstitutional, then it is completely within a governor's prerogative to oppose it.

Abbott has the right to challenge the EO in court. Not to override a presidential EO.

Both EOs are untested by SCOTUS. Biden's, because their ruling was about state's issuing vaccine mandates, not the president, and Abbotts, because the ruling dealt with vaccine mandates when considering public health verses personal freedom, not a state's right to ban vaccine mandates because of personal freedoms.

Both of them concern executive orders, not legislation, which is what SCOTUS ruled ruled on, a state law, not an EO.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Love your tagline. Saw that yesterday.

Here ya go.

IBM, American Air, Southwest Snub Abbott and Back Biden on Shots

“IBM is a federal contractor and must comply with federal requirements, which direct employees of federal contractors to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 by December 8th or obtain a medical or religious accommodation,” a spokesperson for the New York-based company said. “We will continue to protect the health and safety of IBM employees and clients, and we will continue to follow federal requirements.”

“We believe the federal vaccine mandate supersedes any conflicting state laws, and this does not change anything for American,” American said of the Texas ban.

Southwest echoed that statement.

“We would be expected to comply with the president’s order to remain compliant as a federal contractor,” the company said.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's just a fact.

No, it is your opinion, which is apparently based on the opinions of others. Opinions have no legal weight.

Abbott has the right to challenge the EO in court. Not to override a presidential EO.

Abbot has the right, as Governor of the State of Texas, to make any damn Executive Order he so chooses. Whether or not that Executive Order will stand court muster is the question. The same question exists concerning Biden's Executive Order. Biden could sign an Executive Order tomorrow that said ICE would execute anyone caught attempting to cross the border; it would be struck down before the ink was dry.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is all but irrelevant the way you are trying to present it. It addressed a specific argument that is not a part of the present legal question; it presupposed that the mandate was legislated (and in that respect, it does indicate that only a legislative mandate would be acceptable, not an EO); it did not address Federal mandates, and indeed stated that it is the right of states to pass legislation to provide for vaccination mandates if allowed in their respective constitutions, not the Federal government. If anything, Jacobson v. Massachusetts supports Abbot, not Biden.

You still have not answered my question: who owns the body of an employee: the employee themselves or the employer? I am really curious, since it appears so far that you believe the employer owns their bodies.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: GravitySucks

originally posted by: Signals

originally posted by: GravitySucks
I'm confused.

Why the confusion? Displaying merchandise and forced injections are two totally different things. Although Newsome has once again over stepped his boundaries.

Nobody's forcing anyone.

Bull#. Spoken like a true globalist.

Gotta love these republicans. Nothing matters but "muh freedumbs". Oh, and that unborn fetuses are more sacred than conscious people.

originally posted by: macaronicaesar

originally posted by: GravitySucks

originally posted by: Signals

originally posted by: GravitySucks
I'm confused.

Why the confusion? Displaying merchandise and forced injections are two totally different things. Although Newsome has once again over stepped his boundaries.

Nobody's forcing anyone.

Bull#. Spoken like a true globalist.

What's the opposite of a globalist?

a reply to: GravitySucks

Southwest Airlines CEO is against the silly vaccine mandates from this administration.

nypost.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah saw that.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nope. It's a fact. President Biden has leverage over federal agencies and their employees. His executive order addressed those entities. Then Gov Abbot issued and executive order saying NO ENITITY can issue a vaccine mandate. Gov Abbott can issue an executive order in an attempt to override Biden's but it can't be enforced and it won't hold up in court, because as governor he doesn't have authority over federal agencies and their employees, contractors. PERIOD.

His ban on federal mandates for federal agencies and contractors is folly, because as governor he doesn't have that right. He has the right to use state funds to challenge Biden's EO in court. I don't think he has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is all but irrelevant the way you are trying to present it.

Again, SCOTUS ruled state legislated laws requiring vaccine mandates are constitutional. Abbott's EO is irrelevant because the Jacobson v. Massachusetts dealt with state law requiring vaccines, not a governor's attempt to override a presidential vaccine mandate by banning vaccine mandates in his state.

originally posted by: GravitySucks
No one is forcing anyone to take a vaccine.

No one's chasing anyone down in the street, holding them down, and jabbing them.

They are forcing people to make a choice, yes, but no on is forcing anyone to take a vaccine.

The companies are giving people a choice. The government is giving people a choice.

Trouble is, some people don't like the consequences of their choice. No ifs, ands, or buts.

ETA: American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, both based out of Texas, are not backing down.

If I give you the choice to lose your job, house and the ability to take care of your family or let me have sex with your wife any time, or your mother or daughter is that ok because I’m your boss? Just want to know where we draw the line? I mean I can understand a dress code or carry a badge but if as your boss I can require you to do drugs or else then what else can I force you to do? I mean if everyone requires the same thing what would I be limited to? Or better yet what would make you snap? Would you let me tattoo 666 on your head and denounce God or have your head chopped off if everyone agrees and after all you have the choice.

Freaking idiots.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

President Biden has leverage over federal agencies and their employees. His executive order addressed those entities.

Does Biden own those employees' bodies?

Does the US Constitution give the Federal government power to make and enforce medical decisions?

Just answer those two questions.

TheRedneck

Oh it’s getting good in here! I love THEREDNECKS POSTS!!
Shout out to the redneck. The great state of wild abs wonderful West Virginia says hello sir!

So concerning the Jacobson case which the left LOVES to use as justification for vaccine mandates…..muah hahaha

There is an incredible amount of SCOTUS Case law that takes precedent over the Jacobson case for Body Autonomy. I mean let’s be real it’s been over 100 years of court rulings.

The left loves to use the Jacobson case as precedent for the vaccine mandate. Little do they know that the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times upholding the right to bodily autonomy.

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973).

The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life. The case is basically about a man that was dying of a blood disorder and needed a bone marrow transplant. His cousin was a perfect match but the family member who was his cousin refused. So the man decided to sue his own cousin to compel his cousin ti undergo the medical treatment to save his life.


SCOTUS ruled that you cannot legally compel someone to undergo a medical procedure( MRNA COVID VACCINE GENE THERAPY COMIRITY WHATEVS) to save or potentially save another persons life. Think about it. A corpse had more rights then people now. You can’t scavenge dead organs from a corpse to potentially save 35 people without explicit written informed consent prior to death.

So we can work and have no constitutionally protected body autonomy?

The government cannot force you to save someone else’s life against your will, not even the life of a baby

Harvard Law Review:

hulr.org...

It’s a great read. Another great read is this site:


medium.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

If they could then you would be a slave.