biden's vaccine mandate is unconstitutional but why should i care?

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 105
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
he's requiring it on large businesses. i might be wrong but i think a person doesn't have to get the shot if they get weekly testing. 

if ya'll idiots dont care about the people you're killing by not getting vaxed and wearing masks when needed, why should i care that someone is illegally trying to coerce you into doing the right thing, what you should have done all along? 
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
just to note, the WH isn't mandating the Vax currently for WH staff.

And the drug companies J and J and Moderna are not currently mandating vaccines for their employees.
#3
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
if ya'll idiots dont care about the people you're killing by not getting vaxed and wearing masks when needed, why should i care that someone is illegally trying to coerce you into doing the right thing, what you should have done all along? 
Virtually everyone currently being hospitalized right now is unvaccinated, which is why I don’t really understand the fervor around forcing vaccinations. The unvaccinated are killing nobody but themselves, why take the unprecedented steps currently being taken? 
Topic's author
#4
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
there are people around the fringe who can't get vaccinated, plus the breakthrough vaccinated, plus the new variants that the unvaccianted cause. 

i guess my points are just around the fringes, so i see your point. 
#5
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
The only compelling argument to me is that someone who is unvaccinated could potentially put people who can’t get vaccinated because they have some kind of problem at risk. From what I’ve seen that population is pretty small, but with a hamfisted mandate like this, if it’s actually enforced, will probably force a lot of them to get vaccinated. I’m not worried about break through cases because the vast majority are mild 

Personally I’m really really wary of my employer making my medical decisions for me, and I’m incredibly worried about the government forcing them to make my decision for me. It just feels so invasive. I wish I could   put my thoughts together more effectively. I wish I could understand what is driving all of the anger. I guess people are mad that the unvaccinated are making the pandemic continue but it’s only for themselves. If you’re vaccinated the risk is very, very low 
Topic's author
#6
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
yes that's true too... all the economic damage being caused by the unvaccinated keeping the pandemic going on and on. 
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Can I ask- what is your argument for unconstitutional?
Topic's author
#8
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
when a law is passed, it has to have a basis for existing in the constitution. i dont know of any provision that would give him the authority. for example, the commerce clause of the constitution gives congress lots of leeway in creating regulations that touch on interstate commerce. again, i dont know what basis the executive branch has to create laws out of nowhere, that have no basis in the constitution. it's possible a law or provisions exists that i dont know about. though. 
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
when a law is passed, it has to have a basis for existing in the constitution.

Laws don't exist in the Constitution.

Every law is a projection of government power and authority.

The Constitution limits the powers of the government. Think of it like the 10 commandments of "thou shall not...."
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
everything i said is the basis of our legal system, legal theory 101 that everyone in the legal field understands. everything you said is either wrong or half truths. 
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
citation?
#12
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Let me give you a hint; “National Security.”

Joe Biden was gonna be the end of Covid. 3/4 of a year later there are thirty different variants. Of course the media is gonna cover for him.

The fact of the matter is that you aren’t even necessarily safe even if you have the vaccine cause breakthrough cases. Hell you could be fine but still have Covid and spread it to others.

Why aren’t Joe and Tony demanding mask mandates for employers and their employees. 
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
this is just bullshit tbh, basically if you work for a very successful company you're now blackmailed to get vaccinated, in no shape or form is that business being big a factor in health, it's about power and money and conformity enforcement.

Everything even about how education works is about conformity enforcement more than competency training.
#14
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
What policies are in the USA? In here we have that we don’t have to be vaccinated, but we would be restricted from buying at malls, hospital healthcare, restaurant dining, etc. if we don’t vaccinate.

#15
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
If I'm not mistaken, they are not using mRNA vaccines in China. While there would still be a lack of long-term safety data, that would make a difference if they are using a more traditional vaccine with a weakened virus.
#16
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
COVID has a much lower mutation rate than flu; this is why vaccines are still mostly effective against delta, whereas it’s very doubtful  whether a vaccine from one season will be effective on the second for flu.

What COVID lacks in mutation rate, it makes up for in the sheer volume of people being infected: if it’s 10x less mutable, but infects 10x as many people, the number of mutations is the same.

A huge number of people have been vaccinated which sets up a huge pool of people to act as a selective pressure; meaning that if too many people get infected, there could be one delta variant mutation that makes it more effective at causing illness in the vaccinated.

*hopefully*, such mutations will mean the virus is less deadly: as a change to the spike protein is likely to make it less able to penetrate cells - but if that happened; it’s also very possible that would still be pretty deadly, cause significant economic shock; and set us back up square one, or close to it.

The only way of preventing that, is by reducing the pool of people who can get infected to as small as possible - hence vaccine mandates.


If that happens; it’s going to be the most ridiculously obnoxious thing that the right has done in a while - remember that the only reason any of this is an issue, was because Trump was worried the economic impacts of virus mitigation would harm his economic message and cost him the presidency; as a result he pushed the narrative of government overreach and mahrats. Because we all know that the Republican Party platform has been Democratsgungetcha for the last two decades, with a brief foray into immigrantsgungetcha for a couple of years.


The really shitty thing about it, is that it stifles discussion on both sides. How can you have a mainstream conversation about whether vaccine mandates are warranted and effective when doing so often makes you sound close to the people who are claiming that vaccines make you magnetic, or contain microchips, or are just a facade for population control?

So the conversation is poisoned by Trump, it poisons the conversation on the left so that the left don’t spend as much time having the important discussions they need to; which is then weaponized by the right in order to maintain the narrative they made up - and so the cycle continues.

I await the trolls to ignore all of this and instead focus on a weird sound bite to try and derail discussion
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
What are you basing your claim on that Covid is mutating slower than the flu?
#18
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
The whole premise of mahrats here in this context and the context of constitutionality is ridiculous.

The government cannot force you to wear glasses against your consent. 

However, it can prohibit you from driving a car without them, or operating heavy machinery, or be in specific lines of work without wearing the glasses, specifically relating to scenarios where you pose a risk to other if you were not to wear them.

Same goes for safety goggles, hard hats, etc: the government is not forcing you to wear a hard hat - but limits where you can go or be without one; giving you the choice of leaving your hat off, or entering the site.


So many are billing this as an invasion of privacy or violation of fundamental rights to body autonomy - but there is no case or law I am aware of that states that you must put the needle in your arm if you don't want any more than you must wear glasses at all times. 

The whole thing is a bit of a canard; the preoccupation with mahrats is really just a very fancy way of saying “please don’t look at all the policies we’ll try and pass if you elect us - but still vote for us”




#19
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
@Rm

Science:




Specifically, COVID has an RNA proof reading mechanism that reduces mutation rate whereas flu does not.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Biden is the dictator we were all told Trump was.
#21
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
In 1922, the constitutionality of childhood vaccination was examined in the Supreme Court case Zucht v. King. The court ruled that a school could deny admission to children who failed to provide a certification of vaccination for the protection of the public health. In 1987, a measles epidemic occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona and another court case, Maricopa County Health Department vs. Harmon, examined the arguments of an individual's right to education over the states need to protect against the spread of disease. The court found it prudent to take action to combat the spread of disease by denying un-vaccinated children a place in school until the risk for the spread of measles had passed.
#22
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s endemic at this point, it’s never going to go away. If I saw strong evidence that we could actually get to zero covid I might change my mind, but it doesn’t seem like a realistic outcome at all to me, especially considering the fact that it’s been like eight months and they are already talking about booster shots 
#23
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Ramshutu
What COVID lacks in mutation rate, it makes up for in the sheer volume of people being infected: if it’s 10x less mutable, but infects 10x as many people, the number of mutations is the same.
I’ll add a bit to this: it’s not just about the number of infected, but the viral titers among the infected. Part of the reason Delta stands out is that the actual quantity of virus is far higher in patients. That actually suggests that the degree to which it causes harm is lessened as compared with previous variants, since it takes more virus to yield similar symptoms. What it also does is create more opportunities for quasispecies to appear in individual patients. If you have 1000X increase in viral titers in patients, that’s 1000X greater likelihood of generating novel mutants in each patient, and particularly in those who get full blown infections with the virus active throughout their bodies (as opposed to vaccinated individuals where infections are generally more limited), that increases the odds that a given infection will yield more dangerous variants.
#24
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
COVID is likely going to end up a bit like the flu, a seasonal issue, that crops up at a lower level each year or every few years. Vaccines and vaccine mandates are not about eliminating COVID Altogether.

To get to that point that it is endemic, however, we need the mutation rate to be slow enough that vaccines can keep up with it. The only way of doing that, is to reduce the pool of people being infected now.

In the future, with wider levels of base immunity (like the flu), so it’s not as serious, and vaccines that can keep up with the slow rate of change - we can evolve it into something less serious - but that requires a low rate of change - which requires higher vaccination rates; and sure as f*** not hundreds of thousands of new cases per day affording an opportunity for the virus to our evolve the immune system.
#25
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
In the US over 70% of people have already had at least one dose of the vaccine, and of those who haven’t a large but not known portion have immunity from catching the virus. There is a ton of immunity as is. I could be wrong but I don’t see the situation here changing much. But the supply chain disruptions from even a small portion of workers refusing the vaccine are very real, and this is also a completely unprecedented step. States in the US aren’t allowed to ban abortion because of a “right to privacy”, surely a right to privacy that covers abortion would cover your private medical information. 

I also have a big problem with it from a separation of powers/governance issue. It seems highly likely to me that this will get struck down, but not after most companies comply with it which accomplishes the intended goal. Which just seems like hacking the system…don’t approve 

I don’t have a very strong opinion though because I don’t know what I’m talking about 
#26
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
-->@oromagi
when a law is passed, it has to have a basis for existing in the constitution. i dont know of any provision that would give him the authority. for example, the commerce clause of the constitution gives congress lots of leeway in creating regulations that touch on interstate commerce. again, i dont know what basis the executive branch has to create laws out of nowhere, that have no basis in the constitution. it's possible a law or provisions exists that i dont know about. though. 
No new law was made last night.   The health and safety of employees in the workplace has long been subject to Federal protections.

SOTUS ruled  in the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case:

  • "There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good,” read the majority opinion. “On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”
  • "Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”
  • "...for nearly a century, most of the members of the medical profession have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive of smallpox; that, while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual from carelessness in the performance of it, or even, in a conceivable case, without carelessness, they generally have considered the risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits coming from the discreet and proper use of the preventive."
The Federal Govt. has been mandating vaccines since the earliest days of the Republic.  No new law is being asserted here and the Supreme Court precedent deeply supports the Federal mission to save citizens from disease outbreaks.

so- no new law, existing law well established.
Topic's author
#27
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
what statute or constitutional provision gives biden the authority to execute those laws? you didn't cite anything.

the things you cited, were general principles that it's possible to enforce vaccine mandates if there are some, back when those cases were written. where are the modern laws that give biden the authority? 
Topic's author
#28
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
the case you cited was enforcing a then existing state law, nothing about the federal government. 

"In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts that under a state law local health authorities could compel adults to receive the smallpox vaccine. Henning Jacobson refused a free smallpox vaccination that was mandated by the city of Cambridge; he was fined five dollars as a result. Jacobson argued the vaccination law violated his 14th Amendment due process rights."

here is more on the constitutional basis for vaccine mandates. 
#29
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
There is a lot of immunity; but in the US 100-150k people are catching the virus per day. 

It’s not possible to say how low transmission has to be in order to appropriately reduce the risk of a vaccine avoiding variant - though I would say hospitalization rates substantial enough to harm care for Vaccinated people having non COVID health issues, and potential economic issues from long COVID are ask factors. That is all to say that it’s critical to maximize the number of people being Vaccinated.


I don’t accept the comparison with abortion; for a few general reasons.

Pregnancy, childbirth, poses a huge health, financial, time and economic burden - even in an uncomplicated pregnancy: 

If the impact of pregnancy was 2 days of having a sore arm, and a 1/100000 chance of a Blood clot that you’ll probably survive - abortion would be illegal, and everyone would support that stance. 

Likewise, if vaccines caused months of pain and discomfort, removal from the labour force, and substantial hormonal changes to your body - there would be no vaccine mandates.


Your forced to wear clothes to work, glasses to drive if you have vision issues - and you’re required to take medication if health issues impact your ability to drive safely.

There is a credible need in all these cases, including vaccination, being balanced against individual rights. Whether one set of rights or the other is maintained is a nuanced equation that has to be based on the situation, not some binary chest thumping absolutes.

For example, imagine airborn pandemic Ebola; mortality of 90%, but 50% vaccinations that are only 75% effective - with the same state as today. I suspect everyone would be in support of vaccine mandates.

Whether or not these vaccine mandates meet that equation of balance of rights - is a valid discussion - but I reject on principle this binary notion of rights.

That goes for everything. You should able to go in public and talk about how good you think the mandalorian is - but if doing so gave people nearby strokes I would support the police telling you to stfu about it on pain of imprisonment.
Topic's author
#30
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
actually reading closer, there might be a basis here, but not with the basis you cited.

"According to the CRS, several federal vaccine mandate actions are theoretically possible. 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.”

that law could be based on the interstate commerce clause, so it'd have constitutional authority too. i didn't know that law existed, till now.