Vaccine or not?

[Septic]

Are you arguing that states rights and federal rights are the same?

I apologize if I am reading it wrong but you seem to be stating you don’t believe in states rights.

Not at all, I'm asserting that the end result of a federal requirement is indistinguishable from a state requirement.

That fact is secondary to my initial point that the butthurt over the "biggest overreach in history" falls flat given this wasn't even remotely the first vaccine to be hypothetically "required."

 

[DC_Vol]

Different in what way?

A required shot in the arm is different from a required shot in the arm, how?

Tens of millions have taken the vax without incident and we've had a year to look at. That's a large sample size and it indicates it's safe...

As to who is making the requirement, I already explained to you what the difference was.

As to the safety of the jab, I prefer to wait longer to see if there are any long term issues. I don’t feel 100% confident. I certainly wouldn’t have my child take it. If they had done the trials the right way, these booster regimens wouldn’t have been a surprise.

 

[NEO]

Not at all, I'm asserting that the end result of a federal requirement is indistinguishable from a state requirement.

That fact is secondary to my initial point that the butthurt over the "biggest overreach in history" falls flat given this wasn't even remotely the first vaccine to be hypothetically "required."

I personally want almost all the laws I must abide by to be passed and enforced by my actual state. It will be much more a reflection of the voters wants of my state and reflect our beliefs.

I do believe states right should outweigh federal rights.

I am gonna stay out of this one though as you already got like 3 other people on here debating this topic. I was just curious. Thanks.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Are you arguing that states rights and federal rights are the same?

I apologize if I am reading it wrong but you seem to be stating you don’t believe in states rights.

Yes he is. He is stupidly granting the federal executive the power vested into the state executive and legislation over public health. The Constitution grants the federal executive no such power thus it doesn’t exist. As the Constitution is written the federal branches are only granted powers explicitly called out in the constitution and those not explicitly specified reside with the states.

 

[NEO]

Yes he is. He is stupidly granting the federal executive the power vested into the state executive and legislation over public health. The Constitution grants the federal executive no such power thus it doesn’t exist. As the Constitution is written the federal branches are only granted powers explicitly called out in the constitution and those not explicitly specified reside with the states.

I agree. I just hope the SC will too.

Like @Rasputin_Vol i am slightly skeptical.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree. I just hope the SC will too.

Like @Rasputin_Vol i am slightly skeptical.

Skepticism is healthy and warranted. I’m just saying if they really are what they were labeled to be, constitutionalists, we should be fine. And if they aren’t and they are just more statist shills then we’re all screwed anyway.

 

[Septic]

Oh but it does. It explicitly shows that this mandate power rests with the state and not the federal executive. And you’re trying to stupidly extract that authority to the federal executive. Even the idiot in the WH said early on he didn’t have the authority however his handlers clearly revoked that nearly singular factual observation by the moron in chief.

The L belongs clearly to you. I don’t want to usurp my authority and take your property

LOL, no it doesn't. This ruling was specific to the State it didn't limit or dictate that the federal government couldn't do anything.

You really ought to abandon this argument. That ruling sets a precedent if nothing else:

The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public". In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety".

This ruling really doesn't help your case at all, unless you were trying to make the point that SCOTUS believes the government ought to be able to compel vaccinations. If that was what you were trying to do - good job.

 

[Septic]

As to who is making the requirement, I already explained to you what the difference was.

As to the safety of the jab, I prefer to wait longer to see if there are any long term issues. I don’t feel 100% confident. I certainly wouldn’t have my child take it. If they had done the trials the right way, these booster regimens wouldn’t have been a surprise.

Great, if the federal requirement that you have to get the vaccine materializes, remind me how the shot in your arm is different than the other vaccines you've been required to get.

 

[Septic]

I personally want almost all the laws I must abide by to be passed and enforced by my actual state. It will be much more a reflection of the voters wants of my state and reflect our beliefs.

I do believe states right should outweigh federal rights.

I am gonna stay out of this one though as you already got like 3 other people on here debating this topic. I was just curious. Thanks.

I agree with you completely.

 

[NorthDallas40]

LOL, no it doesn't. This ruling was specific to the State it didn't limit or dictate that the federal government couldn't do anything.

You really ought to abandon this argument. That ruling sets a precedent if nothing else:

The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public". In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety".

This ruling really doesn't help your case at all, unless you were trying to make the point that SCOTUS believes the government ought to be able to compel vaccinations. If that was what you were trying to do - good job.

It reaffirmed the states authority over public health. No such authority is granted the federal executive via the constitution. Or perhaps you can provide the article and section where it is explicitly granted? And if it isn’t explicitly granted it doesn’t exist.

I figured you were smart enough to not fall for the stupidity exhibited by the left in using Jacobson vs Mass as a basis to sell this ******** over reach. That’s my fault I guess in over estimating your comprehension

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree with you completely.

Then my Governor telling the Fed executive to pound sand is the correct stance right?

 

[NEO]

Skepticism is healthy and warranted. I’m just saying if they really are what they were labeled to be, constitutionalists, we should be fine. And if they aren’t and they are just more statist shills then we’re all screwed anyway.

Ever since Roberts used taxation as a merit for Obamacare I am very hesitant until the actual ruling.

I do believe ACB and Gorsuch are strong constitutionalist and Kavanaugh leans right but Roberts is a total sell out who I swear someone has dirt on.

I see a 5-4 vote against the federal mandate with Roberts siding with the Democrats but Kavanaugh is my wildcard.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh @Septic !!! From your link.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

The ruling says exactly what I’ve said it does.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ever since Roberts used taxation as a merit for Obamacare I am very hesitant until the actual ruling.

I do believe ACB and Gorsuch are strong constitutionalist and Kavanaugh leans right but Roberts is a total sell out who I swear someone has dirt on.

I see a 5-4 vote against the federal mandate with Roberts siding with the Democrats but Kavanaugh is my wildcard.

Roberts is indeed not the conservative he was touted to be and will continue to move left if for no other reason than to attempt to provide the current swing vote.

 

[Septic]

It reaffirmed the states authority over public health. No such authority is granted the federal executive via the constitution. Or perhaps you can provide the article and section where it is explicitly granted? And if it isn’t explicitly granted it doesn’t exist.

I figured you were smart enough to not fall for the stupidity exhibited by the left in using Jacobson vs Mass as a basis to sell this ******** over reach. That’s my fault I guess in over estimating your comprehension

LOL, you naively believe that since SCOTUS didn't forbid something - it's not allowed? Nothing is the absence of something...

If nothing else, ruling that the State could enforce compulsory vaccinations for the public good establishes precedent.

Seriously, how do you think this helps your argument?

Anyway... Tell me more about how this is the "biggest overreach in history" now when SCOTUS said compelled vaccinations were cool 143 years ago.

 

[Septic]

Oh @Septic !!! From your link.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

The ruling says exactly what I’ve said it does.

Dude.

It doesn't limit the federal governments ability to do anything as the federal government wasn't the subject of the case.

You keep trying to show horn this distinction between requirements and it isn't working.

Try to keep up, I'm starting to feel bad about picking on you.

 

[NorthDallas40]

LOL, you naively believe that since SCOTUS didn't forbid something - it's not allowed? Nothing is the absence of something...

If nothing else, ruling that the State could enforce compulsory vaccinations for the public good establishes precedent.

Seriously, how do you think this helps your argument?

Anyway... Tell me more about how this is the "biggest overreach in history" now when SCOTUS said compelled vaccinations were cool 143 years ago.

Stupid as hell.

No SCOTUS didn’t forbid or grant anything the constitution does. Still waiting on you to provide article and section where the federal executive is explicitly granted that power. And in the absence of that explicit granting I’ll point you to the tenth amendment

 

[NorthDallas40]

Dude.

It doesn't limit the federal governments ability to do anything as the federal government wasn't the subject of the case.

You keep trying to show horn this distinction between requirements and it isn't working.

Try to keep up, I'm starting to feel bad about picking on you.

Tenth amendment, give me the article and section granting the power or GTFO

 

[Septic]

Then my Governor telling the Fed executive to pound sand is the correct stance right?

Sure. Go crazy, just don't be surprised when federal funding dries up and the DOJ comes to call.

The feds can be very compelling to non compliant States, right or wrong.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Sure. Go crazy, just don't be surprised when federal funding dries up and the DOJ comes to call.

The feds can be very compelling to non compliant States, right or wrong.

Tenth amendment, give me the article and section, or GTFO

 

[Septic]

Tenth amendment, give me the article and section granting the power or GTFO

The Executive Branch could cite Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (or PHSA), which allows the Department of Health and Human Services or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make necessary measures “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”

Again, when Joe slips a EO under the door - I'll see you at CVS.

I think it's cute you think the Feds are powerless.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The Executive Branch could cite Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (or PHSA), which allows the Department of Health and Human Services or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make necessary measures “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”

Again, when Joe slips a EO under the door - I'll see you at CVS.

LMFAO you’ll be waiting a while. And thanks for another example of wiping your ass with the constitution. If the executive felt that chapter granted them the power they would be leaning on legislative power vested to HSS instead of leaning on OSHA. But you’re clearly just pointing to the long game they are playing in their 5 D chess game

So now can you point to the article a section? Or should you just GTFO?

 

[Septic]

LMFAO you’ll be waiting a while. And thanks for another example of wiping your ass with the constitution. If the executive felt that chapter granted them the power they would be leaning on legislative power vested to HSS instead of leaning on OSHA. But you’re clearly just pointing to the long game they are playing in their 5 D chess game

So now can you point to the article a section? Or should you just GTFO?

Are you really so dense as to believe that my pointing out facts to your feelz should be conflated with wanting it?

You asked what law gave the feds the ability to line you up at CVS and I gave it to you. Accept it or don't, but your feelz isn't going to change the reality of it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Are you really so dense as to believe that my pointing out facts to your feelz should be conflated with wanting it?

You asked what law gave the feds the ability to line you up at CVS and I gave it to you. Accept it or don't, but your feelz isn't going to change the reality of it.

You haven’t provided any such law. You’ve claimed to do so but you haven’t. Can you point to this section being the basis of any appeal to the three mandate decisions in play? Because they all clearly reference the power of the executive via OSHA in the OSHA act of 1970. But I’m sure you’re more versed in these legal interpretations than the lawyers petitioning the federal courts

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You're very convincing, especially when you immediately reference Fauci.

You deny he created this? Of course you do.