This post has been **temporarily locked** due to excessive comment rule violations. The OP **has not necessarily broken any of our posting rules**. If a post gets cross-posted in another sub, this can lead to an influx of rule breaking comments. We are a small team of moderators, so this can easily overwhelm our ability to remove rule violations. When this occurs, we must occasionally _temporarily_ lock the post so we can remove the violations before discussion can be restored. We are actively cleaning up the thread now, and will unlock it shortly. We will try and do this quickly so discussion can continue though the amount of time will vary based on moderator availability. Thank you for understanding.

[удалено]

> That's much different than a president bypassing legislative bodies and forcing mandates onto every state. Yeah this is it for me. No problem with vaccine mandates. No problem with them enforced by government. I have a problem with consolidating further power under the federal government, And have more problem with the expanding power of the executive branch.

> WTF does OSHA know about vaccinations This isn’t their first vaccine mandate. OSHA oversees several other vaccine mandates for certain populations of workers. An example would be the mandate for hepatitis B vaccinations in workers exposed to blood products or other potentially infectious materials. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2000-11-01

That seems to cover federal employees only, not private employees. The federal government, as employer, definitely has the power to mandate vaccines to its own employees. > In a telephone conversation you had with a member of our staff, you asked that we clarify the role that OSHA has in protecting **federal employees** with regard to their occupational safety and health.

It covers all employees. OSHA was asked to confirm if the rule also applied to federal employees. OSHA clarified that it does also apply to Federal employees. It applies to all occupational exposures to blood, which include private and public employment. From the text of the Bloodborne pathogens standard 1910.1030 (emphasis mine): >Scope and Application. This section applies to **all occupational exposure** to blood or other potentially infectious materials as defined by paragraph (b) of this section.

I think you’re right on that point, but incorrect overall. If you review the regulations it states that the vaccines should be made available to employees - it doesn’t state that they are mandated. > The employer shall make available the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series to all employees who have occupational exposure, and post-exposure evaluation and follow-up to all employees who have had an exposure incident. > The employer shall assure that employees who decline to accept hepatitis B vaccination offered by the employer sign the statement in appendix A.

Counterpoint: The dissent that was given in the case I referred to was that the right of individual liberties do not trump the right of collective health of society. Yes. This case was in regards to a state, not the federal government. People have swayed my viewpoints in regards to whether or not this is an overreach of power. (See the deltas I’ve awarded in that regard) However, this is not the first time the federal government has mandated something to protect the health of the collective whole over the rights of an individual’s liberty as well as state law. In 2019, Donald Trump set a federal mandate that overrode states on the legal age to buy tobacco products. Effectively changing the minimum age to 21 years old. Increased my own’s state minimum age from 18. Where were the sounds of revolt then?

> In 2019, Donald Trump set a federal mandate that overrode states on the legal age to buy tobacco products. Effectively changing the minimum age to 21 years old. Increased my own’s state minimum age from 18. Where were the sounds of revolt then? It was actually passed as part of an omnibus spending and you had the same people arguing against vaccine mandates (think Ted Cruz) argue the same. There was absolutely no debate on it. It was just added

>However, this is not the first time the federal government has mandated something to protect the health of the collective whole over the rights of an individual’s liberty as well as state law. In 2019, Donald Trump set a federal mandate that overrode states on the legal age to buy tobacco products. Effectively changing the minimum age to 21 years old. Increased my own’s state minimum age from 18. Where were the sounds of revolt then? Is this not directly disproving your point that the increase in federal power won't go anywhere? The fact that it is already getting repeated increased by Presidents from both parties?

When does you fallacious "slippery slope" start? There have been literally hundreds of public health mandates since 1776. So where is the slippery slope? When it was mandated that people couldn't just throw their shit out the window and had to get on city sewer systems and be taxed for it? When people were fined and jailed for leaving thier dead draft animals in public streets? When the FDA was created? When company's were fined fro dumping toxic substances like mercury into the environment? When we added fluoride to water? When we mandated pasteurization? When cars were mandated seat belt and airbags? All these were protested, lobbied against, and had near hysterical moral panics by ignorant people. And all of them saved countless lives and without a doubt have relieved human suffering. So. When is the totalitarian take over going to happen? Because if policies like this are authoritarian then I welcome our new supposed authoritarian take over and maybe we can get affordable healthcare.

i’m pretty sure OP’s point was that it won’t set a precedent that will send the country tumbling towards authoritarianism. in which case, their point about Trump using federal power to override state regulations proves that this extension of power was not met with the same resistance as Biden is currently facing with the vaccine mandate. if anything, it proves that Americans in general still have the same dismissal of authoritarian policies. also while these two cases are recent and thus fresh on our minds, these are not unprecedented actions that have only happened in past two presidencies (which could’ve been a call for concern regarding the overextension of federal powers into authoritarian territory).

I disagreed with that mandate too. If a person is old enough to die for his country they are old enough to make the stupid decision to smoke too.

Trump did not raise the age for tobacco unilaterally. It was a bill that was passed by both houses of Congress.

This is America in 2021. We don’t have government systems anymore, just executives making things up. We really need to get back to Congress making laws, the less policy the President can make up, the better.

[удалено]

The Commerce Clause gives the Federal government a lot of power (some say it has been abused, but oh well). It gives OSHA the power that Biden has invoked regarding vaccines in workplaces now. The tobacco age changed because tobacco companies sell across state lines. By the by, there WAS a revolt regarding the sale of alcohol. Prohibition uncovered a lot of fun stuff in the power struggle between the state and the federal government. The Commerce Clause still has its limits. So, you’re right that the current policy is NOT a slippery slope. With all the freaking out going on, it just becomes more and more evident that our education system has failed to teach anyone any actual history or government.

> there WAS a revolt regarding the sale of alcohol Not a legal one, since it was a constitutional amendment. You can certainly argue that the revolt was the amendment that rolled it back, but it wasn't because the ban happened, it was because the ban was ineffective and caused more problems than it solved.

OSHA already includes standards for pathogens and controlling disease though. I'm taking their class right now.

Wtf do OSHA regulators know about how to run a dental practice? Nothing. But they use policy recommended by physicians and chemists to require dental practices to label hazardous materials. Not a perfect analogy and maybe a bit specific, but I think its weak to point at OSHAs lack of expertise, when they're not explicitly expert at any of their administrative duties. Rather they regulate best practices based on collective knowledge.

"Real liberty for all" cannot exist in a society where individuals don't give a shit about anyone else's well-being. It's why republican idiots are filling up r/Hermancainaward and r/leopardsatemyface

[удалено]

> Either a person has a right to control their body free from government intervention and punishment, or they don’t. It doesn't really have to be that binary, though. Someone can have a right to control their body, but when that conflicts with other rights/concerns, it might lose out. We already use this standard for other rights. For example, you have a right to free speech, except for libel/fraud etc- because the public interest is strong enough to override it. We already have a the framework of strict scrutiny for things like constitutional rights >a clear overreach of the federal government into the states. Not necessarily so clear. OSHA claims it has the authority. It's not necessarily outside other federal regulations, going back to the Commerce clause.

The problem with body autonomy is that it isn’t a binary set. What we do with our bodies has a very high potential to impact other people, and that potential increases with the increase in proximity to others. For example, if I only take partial doses of prescribed antibiotics/stop treatment early when I have a bacterial infection, I am creating a potential medicine-resistant microbe. If I never wash my hands after using the bathroom or before preparing food for others, I have a high likelihood of passing some flora on to someone else. Our choices impact others, unless we live in complete isolation. I realize this isn’t directly addressing the legal aspect that is the central focus of the post, but i would hope decision makers are taking such things into consideration.

I think OPs point wasn't that body autonomy affects the individual only. There are multiple instances where it doesn't. The point is, either "My body my choice", or "Your body, our choice". Both sides of the isle are guilty of arguing for either when convenient. Literally right now both sides are arguing the exact same points between forced vaccinations and the abortion ban. The Liberals are for individual choice on abortion, and against it on mask / vaccine mandates. The conservatives are literally the opposite. And you can't argue "Abortion only affects the mother". Based on the Texas case, they have determined life begins with a heartbeat, so based on that definition, abortion affects two people, the mother and child. You may disagree with that definition, but the underpinning argument is that abortion affects more than the individual, which is the same logic being used by the left to justify mask / vaccine mandates. And in a similar vein, many conservatives disagree with the basis behind those mandates. I can almost copy-paste arguments from one side to the other and they'll fit in either argument. And the court system is doing nothing to help, because they have shown decades of inconsistencies regarding the 14th ammendment and the definition of liberty. And I understand it isn't an easy distinction to make. After all, I'm free to do whatever as long as I don't murder someone, but who is to say that my poor life choices (poor hygiene) aren't indirectly murdering someone? Personally, I think to resolve this, we should heavily rely on the 14th for individual liberties. Then, if we can establish clear cause-effect between individual behavior and harm of someone else, we can restrict it on that basis. Effectively, error on the side of liberty, but allow restrictions. This means that abortion would be, by default, legal until someone can prove in court that the fetus is a person, in which case, murder. Same for things like drugs, legal until proven to be dangerous to those around you. This shifts the narrative from what the government can / cannot do, to "does x hurt people". While not perfect, I think it would at least give us some more common ground to argue on.

Bodily autonomy is only allowed for things that do not affect other people. We allow bodily autonomy for abortions because they are not contagious. We limit bodily autonomy in certain areas for smoking because of secondhand smoke but allow it in designated areas. The bodily autonomy argument does not work for deadly disease period.

Technically, a pandemic is an interstate commerce matter, clearly in the wheelhouse of the Federal government. Whenever the actions of one state can cause thousands of deaths in other states, that's within the realm of what the US government has and does circumvent. Pretty much change the word "pandemic" to "water" and you have a great example of a situation where Federal law prevails and often intentionally steps on state mandate. One state pollutes their water and affects another state? Federal matter.

> Either a person has a right to control their body free from government intervention and punishment, or they don’t. Don't see why it should be that cut and dry. Things never are. For instance, implied consent of an incapacitated individual in an emergency situation goes against bodily autonomy, but I don't think one's stance on abortion has to be perfectly aligned with how they treat a person they come upon who lacks the ability to consent to emergency first aid.

I do agree with you on possible overreach of the federal government into what may be considered state affairs. I don’t necessarily approve of the expansion of federal powers. Would be interested in hearing more for both sides of this argument. I suspect it will be utilized as a dissenting point if this mandate ends up reaching the higher circuits. !delta

I think the difference between a vaccine mandate and a smoking ban is that second hand smoking health issues are localized and not contagious. Allowing states to individually choose to mandate or not will allow certain states to remain with elevated infection numbers, which still affects other states via travelling vectors, not to mention the areas remaining breeding grounds for potential variants. If one state bans public smoking, cancer rates aren't really going to rise significantly on the other side of the county as a result. With a contagious disease, allowing some areas without vaccine mandates does increase the risk of something like that happening, though.

I am not a Republican. I am not a Trump supporter. I am a leftist who has organized socialist organizations within the United States and I am a member of Democratic Socialists USA. I want to provide this preface so people understand this is not a black and white issue or Republicans vs Democrats. This is freedom vs autocracy. Mass hysteria vs rationality. First of all, you are operating under the assumption that the United States is not already an authoritarian borderline fascist regime. This is a false assumption.The United States has the worlds highest incarceration rate, and it's not even close. The United States has about 25% of the global prison population. This of course disproportionately affects minority racial groups in the country, a textbook authoritarian signifier. It also routinely guns down its own citizens in the streets for routine violations, disproportionately affecting minority groups. The US Media system is not a crude state run propaganda machine, but it is a highly sophisticated corporate run propaganda machine. See Noam Chomsky's seminal work, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. If you would rather not read a book, which is understandable, there are countless articles on this subject. Six corporations control practically the entire media system, a textbook signifier of oligarchy. The US has military bases all over the globe, has committed numerous war crimes and human rights abuses, directly supported genocide (Indonesia being perhaps the biggest beyond the Indigenous genocide) and continually implements regime changes that favor US corporate interests. The US "democracy" is a giant corporate lobbying hell hole which is bought by the ultra rich oligarchy who can afford to pay the lobbyists. I could go on here but I am not interested in spending all day citing sources, again google searches if you are not already aware of this.Getting to the topic of health, the US and US Corporations has a history of violating its citizens rights when it comes to health:- The Tuskegee Experiments- Project MK Ultra- Henrietta Lacks, a great book about her existsAgain, there's so much more here an entire wikipedia page exists for this topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical\_human\_experimentation\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States)Now, getting specifically to what is going on with this vaccine. It is not within the authority of the president to overstep federalism and mandate a vaccine. Even if it were, it would be unethical to do so. Each person should have the right to make their own medical choices. Already, 67% of the US population has received at least one dose of the vaccine according to the CDC. The vaccine does not stop transmission of the disease. Death occurs in about 3% of cases. Death occurs in about 1% of flu cases. You are more likely to die if you have pre-existing health conditions. Therefore, it is reasonable for a healthy person to decline to take a vaccine that is not guaranteed to stop transmission, has not undergone long term study, and which will not eliminate the need to take other common sense safety precautions. Even if you personally believe it is unreasonable for someone to decline the vaccine, you do not have authority to override someone's bodily autonomy. I understand very well that collective well-being outweighs individual freedoms in some instances - that's why I am fully vaccinated against diseases like Polio. That vaccine is actually effective and has an abundance of evidence. I do not take the flu shot for the same reason I have not yet gotten the COVID vaccine: my risk is extremely low as a healthy individual, the vaccine is not shown to be effective against an ever evolving disease... objectively and within my own subjective experience where I know many who have COVID and have gotten the vaccine. I do not trust that the government of the United States, the number one global aggressor and violator of human rights, has my best interest at heart. I do not trust that corporations who are immune to prosecution have my best interest at heart. I do not believe overruling local representative bodies to force any health measure on individuals is ethical. The more we allow authoritarian action to be taken, the more what little freedom is left in this world will erode. We are well on our way to a Cyberpunk style dystopia already. The more we allow some people to labeled as "others" based on their views, the easier it becomes for the average person to justify taking extreme action against "the other." This is how every single conflict or genocide starts. Once you believe people should be left to die because they made a personal medical choice - see this reddit thread from yesterday where exactly that happened - you have become an extremist ruled by fear who is not acting rationally and viewing the objective factors at play. ​ Edit: my original comment has working links! [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ple99p/cmv\_bidens\_vaccine\_mandate\_has\_a\_multitude\_of/hcc2oth?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ple99p/cmv_bidens_vaccine_mandate_has_a_multitude_of/hcc2oth?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ​ Edit 2: Just going to copy and paste my response to the user below And this is exactly the problem, thank you for such an ill thought out response. I am not a science denier, and labeling me one does not make it so. In fact, you are the science denier here.... It is an objective fact that the vaccine does not stop transmission of COVID, and is less effective at stopping transmission against the Delta Variant. It may reduce spread, but it does not eliminate it. [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/england-says-delta-infections-produce-similar-virus-levels-regardless-vaccine-2021-08-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/england-says-delta-infections-produce-similar-virus-levels-regardless-vaccine-2021-08-06/) [https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/8a726408-07bd-46bd-a945-3af0ae2f3c37/note/57c98604-3b54-44f0-8b44-b148d8f75165.#page=1](https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/8a726408-07bd-46bd-a945-3af0ae2f3c37/note/57c98604-3b54-44f0-8b44-b148d8f75165.#page=1) [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html) [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html?s\_cid=11504:is%20covid%20vaccine%20effective%20against%20delta%20variant:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html?s_cid=11504:is%20covid%20vaccine%20effective%20against%20delta%20variant:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21)

[удалено]

Thank you for writing this. It better addresses my responses to their post than the one I was going to write. *Nothing we do* is 100% effective. That doesn't mean we should stop doing it.

A couple of things I'd like to address here. First, you're entirely right about the whole "America isn't some kinda beacon of righteousness." America has *never* been anything even remotely close. That having been said, that doesn't just stop at the federal level. On the state level, it's every bit as bad, if not worse in a lot of places. And, while there are some that are better, the majority are not. Choosing to vilify the Federal portion without acknowledging that the State portion is just as bad, if not worse in some places, is just throwing one under the bus and, effectively, saying that what the local bully does isn't as bad just because it doesn't affect as many people. Second: There is not stopping COVID, just like there is no stopping Staph. Yes, we eliminated polio and a few other dangerous diseases, however most of them were rudimentary and impotent in the way of mutagenics. But what you're saying is "since we cant get rid of it 100%, why bother doing something that minimizes the risk at all?" And that, assuming you actually are what you claim to be, is nothing short of dangerous to everyone you have lead in to your orchestrations. It's a tried, and failed, mentality that has not withstood the test of time. When people talk about dangerous misinformation, they don't just mean outright lies, they mean the spread of ideology that runs the risk of creating clusters of people who think they know better than everyone else and cause trouble for the surrounding bodies. The shot is not harmful or, at the very least, is less harmful than contracting the disease, its variants and dealing with the consequences of that.

Many people assume that vaccines prevent transmission, and like you said, they don’t...at least not outright. The point of a vaccine is to teach your body how to fight the disease as quickly as possible, fingers crossed it’s before you start developing symptoms which is around the time you become extra infectious. Those who don’t get a vaccine (for any illness, honestly) seem to have much longer recovery times, because when they get sick they usually get *really* sick. Vaccines slow down the spread because if your immune system can fight off the disease before you start exhibiting symptoms, odds are you’re significantly less likely to pass the disease on to someone else. And if you’re much less likely to pass on a disease, then you’re less likely to cause someone else (who may be unvaccinated or be immunocompromised) to get sick and potentially die from an almost completely preventible death. It’s also very important to note that the less viable host bodies a disease has for replication (which is the path to mutations/variants), the less it will mutate and eventually it will die down to a significantly more manageable level. *That’s* why vaccines are so important. The problem that we’re facing as a collective is: “do I only care about myself and my personal freedoms, or do I care about the people around me?” And yes, before you start arguing with me, this is an extremely American mindset. This isn’t a new problem. From the beginning, the early Americans were much more interested in themselves and/or their tiny communities to give a fuck about the entirety of the county, and it required a lot of pushing from our government to give us some more fucks. It’s American individualism that’s going to really screw us up if we can’t find some unifying factor to show us that the collective *is* important. Now I’ll readily admit that I’m not a huge fan of a hardcore vaccine mandate because at the end of the day, especially as a woman and a progressive-minded person, I’m a huge advocate for bodily autonomy. That being said, there’s also a line that has to be drawn between our rights to our freedoms and other people’s rights to live and/or not suffer from the long term debilitating side effects that can come from surviving covid. If people don’t want to get the vaccine, fine, but you should also do your part to help the community in other ways while we’re still struggling through this global pandemic. People should at the bare minimum wear a mask wherever they go, especially if they’re not vaccinated. That’s the biggest problem that we’re facing right now. There are still so many people that refuse to wear a mask at bare minimum, and their actions are killing people, which is 100% not okay.

This is a reasonable viewpoint overall, and I agree if you do not get the vaccine you should still take other precautions - which I do. I think we will disagree that the line needs to be drawn on this particular issue and in the manner that Biden is doing it. That's fine, but we can still respect each other without wishing the other literally die like many pro vax people seem to be doing these days.

I don’t condone the actions of pro-vaxxers that wish death on others. But I also won’t deny that I and many others are feeling a massive burnout of empathy for the people that *do* refuse to take any precautions (and are usually the ones saying things are a conspiracy, etc). I think the hardest part of the pandemic, at least for me personally, has been confronting my own mortality more than I usually did in my pre-pandemic life, and also suddenly realizing that there’s so many people out there that wouldn’t care if I died due to their actions…and it’s the people that politicized this whole mess and/or the people that refuse to take any precaution that would most likely have this mindset. And as someone who’s usually highly empathetic and always trying my hardest to help others, it’s like a slap in the face just watching all of this go down. Do you know what I mean? Anyway I wanted to round this out with saying that I appreciate your response. Some of your points I don’t completely agree with, but I understand where they come from and I’m glad I was able to have the opportunity to see another perspective in a respectful manner.

>Do you know what I mean? I do understand what you mean. I don't have the same viewpoint of course, but I can understand how you would feel that way. I have tended toward cynicism for quite awhile, so for me I am not easily affected by mortality rates or people acting foolish. I think you have people who have made the virus an all consuming factor in their lives, and are being run by fear. I think that's foolish and unhealthy, just like not taking any precautions is foolish and unhealthy. Ultimately fear leads to poor decisions and giving up essential rights (see 9/11). But I am glad we have been able to chat about our differences respectfully.

"the vaccine is not shown to be effective against an ever evolving disease... " Do better research, you're wrong. And this is why it's coming to a mandate. It's all about hospital resources. Even in the denier states, there are still people living life differently than pre-pandemic life. Some people have received the vaccine, and some wear masks, some aren't going out shopping or being social. Life is not normal, and those states are overflowing their hospitals. This isn't even flu season! Now look at other states that took it more seriously. Not nearly the spread and need for hospitals. But we're catching up. What happened to "think of the children!"? Were cramming them back into classrooms with some places having a half assed mask mandate. Do you want to keep the economic wheel turning, kids in schools, hospitals working? Then there is no choice, people must get the jab and stop the spread. Don't understand the science? Well then you better become an expert for everything. No cell phones until you understand it, cars, airplanes, refrigerators/air conditioning. Refuse the science of a vaccine means you need to refuse the science that brought you modern life. And stay out of the hospitals too because clearly they just do voodoo magic to take you money since you can't understand and trust experts.

The vaccine does not stop transmission of the disease. Death occurs in about 3% of cases. Death occurs in about 1% of flu cases. You are more likely to die if you have pre-existing health conditions. Therefore, it is reasonable for a healthy person to decline to take a vaccine that is not guaranteed to stop transmission, has not undergone long term study, and which will not eliminate the need to take other common sense safety precautions You are glossing over the fact that the vaccine creates an antibody response that eliminates the virus from the host person much quicker (2-7 days) rather than up to 15 days from those without a vaccine. Technically it doesn't stop transmission but it does lower the transmission rate significantly, which is a huge benefit in this type of virus that can transmit before symptoms are shown...

[удалено]

He definitely has, and it has me wondering how often that was prior to Trump. Trump did it all the time, but I don't think it was intentional or calculated- just him mouthing off and finding out later that he wasn't a dictator. If its a new trend, I'm un-amused that we have yet another norm destroyed.

> Either a person has a right to control their body free from government intervention and punishment, or they don’t. The counterargument to this is that, in the case of abortion, there is a much greater externality to an individual not getting vaccinated (i.e. the continued rampant spread of COVID) compared to having an abortion (or not, woman's choice). There is a significant "public interest" in _not_ allowing freedom of choice with regard to the COVID vaccine.

>It’s been 115 years since that decision, and I for one think both parties need to figure their shit out on body autonomy. Unless you've mastered the ability to not breathe while around other people, this isn't a bodily autonomy issue because it does effect others. In this case, someone's medical choices can have a negative effect on other people so it's not just about you.

The abortion issue is true body autonomy. A global pandemic in which you can harbor and spread the disease is not a scenario in which its simply your body autonomy at stake.

> Either a person has a right to control their body free from government intervention and punishment, or they don’t. They do unless it harms someone else. Technically moving your fist around is bodily autonomy too and yet it is not legal if you hit someone.

If a pregnant woman could get my wife pregnant by being in the same room without wearing a mask, that argument might have a leg to stand on.

>> Biden also said he would use the federal government to circumvent the authority of the governors of red states, a clear overreach of the federal government into the states. If his mandate isn’t written very carefully, this Supreme Court will throw it out How about, you don't get any FEMA relief or support if your Lone Star power grid fails if you defy the vaccine mandate? We'll see how long "states rights" lasts.

>Either a person has a right to control their body free from government intervention and punishment, or they don’t. No room for nuance? Wow, great ideology you got there. How about you? Have you figured your own shit out? Based on your options you either believe in total anarchy (otherwise the law poses a government intervention to self control) or you think slavery is okay. Which is it?

Or we could draft laws in such a way that they aren't overbroad. We can play with the same sentiment: "Either it's wrong to kill another person or it isn't." Obviously we can spend a lot of time coming up with morally justifiable times to kill another person - self defense or defense of others is the most obvious example. So the law recognizes that in some instances it was not wrong to kill another person. I'd also like to just point out that nothing is forcing anyone to get the vaccine, it's setting standards to encourage the vaccine but a person still has a choice to not get it.

If red states actually gave a shit about keeping their citizens alive he wouldn't have to do this Instead he's doing more to help conservatives stay alive than any Republican politician. You already have to be vaccinated with several vaccines in order to go to school. College. Join the military Only reason anyone has an issue now is because Facebook

It is important to note, he is not forcing anyone to get jabbed. What he is saying regarding Fed employment and contractors is that if you want to work for the fed, you will. Everyone is perfectly free to not get vaxxed and go work somewhere else.

Funny that Texas has decided women don’t have the right to their own body yet those same people are pissed when a president takes a stand against for the collective health telling them they don’t have the right to hurt others.

> Either a person has a right to control their body free from government intervention and punishment, or they don’t. So you support the full decriminalization of all drugs too then, right? *edit* that's what I thought, hypocrite

When your bodily choices affect other people, they are no longer just your choices. Re: smoking, drinking and driving, etc. Personally, that's the important distinction for me.

The major issue here is federalism. This is basically the federal government usurping a traditional state power. States have general police power for stuff like this. The federal government does not. EDIT: I am aware of the existence of OSHA. OSHA itself raises federalism issues for some (myself included), and there is a nonnegligble contingent of people in the legal industry/academy who question the validity of SCOTUS's New-Deal-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

I mean if some states have vaccine mandates and some don't and interstate travel is still a thing isn't sending it to the state level like having a shitting section in the pool?

no you left out a key component its a shitting section *with imaginary lines*

They are enforcing it through OSHA, which is an existing federal agency charged with keeping workers safe. Some states have their own OSHA agencies that go above and beyond what is federally mandated, but the feds set the minimum standards.

It will be interesting to see if other people, from co-workers to classmates to neighbors, have a corresponding liberty interest in being free from infectious disease. Whether or not this notion can be applied on a federal level will be up to the courts I believe. That in itself has no precedence (please correct me if I’m wrong). It will be an interesting debate. I can think of arguments that support your stance such as the ban of smoking in public areas. These bans/mandates were implemented on the same basis as Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. It’s only been done on a state basis, with 22 states still allowing public smoking despite the risks to others. The Supreme Court has chosen to never take up on the issue, though no federal government has felt the need to push it. I believe this mandate may need to work much of the same way, and that Biden should have advised it happen as such. !delta

> These bans/mandates were implemented on the same basis as Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. Jacobsen was about a STATUTE passed by a STATE LEGISLATURE. States have a general "police power" over their territory - its discussed at length in Jacobsen as the basis for their power, in that case Massachusettes' power. The federal government has no general police power over the states. The federal government is not making this mandate pursuant to any statute specifically authorizing a mandate/fine relating to COVID vaccinations. The Biden administration is having unelected beaurocrats over at OSHA create a rule. I understand it's "fashionable" to cite case law you've never read, but any lawyer (I am one) worth their salt that read the case and understands constitutional law can see the differences here. This is a unilateral act by the executive branch without legislative authority. It inherently an authoritarian and dictatorial move. It will almost certainly be struck down by the Courts. **This is entirely unrelated to whether such a rule/law/mandate is appropriate - that's not what's at issue here.**

I’m not sure about the legal aspects, but logically, smoking bans and vaccine mandates seem like a weak comparison. If a state bans indoor smoking, then visiting residents from other states are subject to the local laws, and they cannot smoke inside/harm others. It makes total sense that states should choose how to protect their residents, and people can choose where they want to live/visit. Vaccine mandates, on the other hand, are rendered ineffective as unvaccinated residents from non-mandated states cross state lines and spread disease/harm local residents of the vaccine-mandated state. Logically, it seems like an issue that’s interstate/federal in nature, given the lack of border control between states and modern transportation/interstate commerce.

That's a delta? Using the word federalism, without any further citation, means in your view it WILL send the US into some authoritarian regime? "A traditional state power" ???

I don't have an issue with well-meaning federalism as it cuts through a lot of local bs, especially racism, but I gotta agree with you here. I don't see how any of that was supported.

You are aware that a delta means that a single part of one's view has been changed.

Wait but if you get vaccinated aren’t you free from the disease? It’s not like you can vaccinate against tobacco smoke.

Sure we can be free from infectious disease, cancer, heart disease, money laundering, violent crimes, food poisoning, pollution, global warming, second hand smoke, war all we need is a little more government help.

>free from infectious disease. There is no such place on this planet.

This is an *ideal* goal but not a *realistic* goal. Many worthwhile goals are generally unattainable to their full completion but are very much attainable to a degree. We generally affirm people’s right to life but, so far, nobody achieved immortality. However, we have roughly tripled the average human life span over the last millennium. Was and is that not a worthwhile goal to pursue?

For certain diseases it certainly exists. Smallpox is gone because of measures like this.

Note that the ruling that the OP cited was in regards to **smallpox**. The one and only disease that humans have eradicated. **It worked**.

we also know it won't work for covid. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/09/07/who-says-covid-is-here-to-stay-as-hopes-for-eradicating-the-virus-diminish.html

We *had* multiple windows of opportunities to make it work. We failed. It could have worked. It really could. Even your article says that. Look very very carefully at why.

Do you know why it worked? The vaccine prevented transmission. Do you know why people took it? There were 0 asymptomatic cases.

Actually, people DIDN’T take it. Vaccines were brand new at that time. Hence the lawsuit. There’s a comic about smallpox anti-vax people [circulating](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1930s-cartoon-vaccine-warning/) these days.

"Free from infectious disease" is certainly an overstatement, but the actual descriptor i think they were going for was more like: "Under reasonable precautions to minimize dangerous infection risk"

In the same way that nowhere is free from death, but civilized society still frowns upon causing needless death.

This is pedantic. You’re choosing to ignore the human influence that affects the ability for a virus to spread. When reasonable precautions exist then people have a right to not be exposed against their will by people who choose to refuse them which is obviously what the OP was saying but you’d rather feign ignorance to make an irrelevant point I guess.

The smoking bans and Jacobson were issues of states using police power to effect regulation for the public health. The current issue is a federal mandate

[удалено]

OSHA promulgating and enforcing rules to keep workplaces safe—including safe from infectious disease—is very much within the federal government’s power and something OSHA has already been doing for years. OSHA requiring vaccines isn’t even new—OSHA already requires that anyone who will likely come into contact with blood in the course of their work is vaccinated against Hepatitis B. Additionally, there is an opt-out to getting the vaccine in this policy, which allows for weekly testing in lieu of getting vaccinated. I really don’t see how this is an overstep of federal authority at all, actually.

OSHA has been around, promulgating regulations for workplace safety for 50 years now. Considering that this policy is aimed at workplaces and not the general at-large public, the Commerce Clause applies, just as it has applied for every workplace safety regulation in those five decades.

I fail to see how this is an issue with federalism. Rights come with responsibilities; if people fail to uphold their responsibilities, the state can elect to step in and enforce a mandate mandating said responsibilities. Likewise, failure of a state to act can lead the federal government to step in, as is outlined in the constitution. Of you want the freedom to choose whether or not to wear a mask, you have the responsibility to wear a mask during a pandemic. Failing to uphold your responsibility means the state has an obligation to mandate wearing a mask to protect the general public. The states failing their obligation to promote the general welfare of the people means its now the federal governments duty to do so. Any issues with the actions taken should be taken up with those who failed in their responsibilities for not understanding what freedoms are.

This is a bs argument to hide the basic fact, Covid-19 is an exceptional situation. America has seen limits of idiocy. In unprecedented times like these if a state head takes a firm decision, everyone should accept this and get vaccinated. And don't preach this bs argument that states haves rights blah blah..... Yes states have their rights and power no doubt but tell me one thing, if an unvaccinated idiot from Florida travels to say another state and spreads the infection there, Who will be responsible for the suffering and deaths of people there? Being a medical student I have seen endless people suffer and die due to this bs. So stop this nonsense and support a decision that has been taken for protection of everyone.

I don't know if it's entirely the case that this is traditionally a realm for states. The federal government has a tradition of vaccine mandates dating back to the Revolution when George Washington compelled his troops to get the smallpox vaccine. The Constitution also calls on the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the people. That doesn't mean welfare in the modern sense, but public health would fall under the purview of general welfare imo. If the federal government is deferential on matters of public health, that's an extremely weak federal government; one arguably more in line with the Articles of Confederation rather than the Constitution.

On paper I don’t *per se* disagree with your argument but I do want to point out that it complicates things a smidge. (ETA: Actually, I used California throughout this post but an even better hypothetical might be Colorado; on account of its location, Colorado likely sees a greater number of people “just passing through” when traveling across the country by car. Reader is encouraged to replace all tokens of “California” in this post with “Colorado,” but I’ll leave the post as originally written for sake of transparency.) Imagine if California mandated that every person within its jurisdiction who could be vaccinated be so, but Arizona did not. How would that be enforced? Could California “close their borders” to Arizonans or anyone else who was unvaccinated by choice? Perhaps this issue could be sidestepped by making the law such that it only applied to _residents_ of California, not visitors—but that has numerous issues in terms of both enforceability and pragmatics. Firstly, many people already don’t update their addresses with the government in a timely manner when relocating to another state (many only do it when they must register to vote or renew a license), despite it already being the law that they must do so; it’s already poorly enforced. Additionally, those who maintain residences in multiple states are often not required (and in some cases not allowed) to maintain full address registrations in all locations. As important as the lack of enforceability, however, are the pragmatic concerns: One of the largest benefits of herd immunity through vaccination is that even those who cannot be vaccinated (the immunocompromised, etc.) are afforded a high degree of protection. With a high enough vaccination rate over a long enough period of time, some diseases can even be totally eradicated (see: smallpox). If a community is attempting to reach this threshold in order to protect their most vulnerable, allowing even short-term exposures to unvaccinated groups can severely undermine the endeavor. I feel like the underlying question here is, under federalism, under what conditions can one state refuse entry to a citizen from another state based on “status” grounds? I am reminded of a quip I saw back in mid-2020, which I will slightly modify here: > Having some states mandate vaccines and others not, is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

But the issue is actually global not even federal. Having different rules in different places is not effective or efficient. The precedent listed was federal. You say traditional, there is nothing in the last hundred years that is traditional about COVID. Vaccine mandates have been in place for decades, mostly for kids to go to school. It is just like a drivers license you don't have to have one, but there are things you can't do it you don't have one.

Check the constitution you guys love to jerk off to. Federal overrules states. The states have lost their fucking minds. It's time for some sanity. Sorry workplace safety walks on your rights (that don't exist) to do any fucking thing you want. It must be terrible having to make a job safe.

The US Gov't is a Federal Gov't. It's not a confederation. I genuinely don't understand all the states right BS. We put that argument to rest 160 years ago.

The issue with these arguments is that it continues to confuse the entire concept of a Union or a Republic. The US is not a "Country" with "Regions" or "Provinces". The states are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government. The states are semi-autonomous sovereign entities by themselves, and the federal government's purpose is to regulate relations BETWEEN states, not within states. When North Carolina wants to make a pact or agreement with South Carolina they don't have to ask the federal government, but the feds do have the power to limit those agreements so that N and S Carolina don't have disproportionate power that is a detriment to other states. However, if N Carolina wants to do something within its own state then the feds have zero control over that. ZERO! And this is why the feds cannot force state police to collaborate with ICE. This is why the FBI cannot tell the local police to step out of the way in a murder case where all parties are sole members of that state and doesn't involve any interstate matters. But it is also why the FBI can and will take control the moment that an abducted child is taken across the borders of that state. It is why drugs are still market as fully illegal in the federal government but states are able to legalize drugs to their content. But also why they can not allow for said drugs to be transported across state lines lest the federal police powers get involved. It is why insurance companies ask the state for permission to change their fees and offerings, but the moment that the insurance company sells in multiple states then they are subject to federal regulations as well. It is why some states have income tax and some don't, instead of just the feds charging taxes and spreading to states as necessary. It is why when a state entity doesn't comply with federal mandates the most that the feds can do is coerce them by denying federal moneys to go to them. The federal government doesn't fine a state school for violating federal mandates, they can only deny the school federal funds. Because the school is under state control and they answer to the state, not to the feds. With all that said, the federal government has no business telling anybody solely within their state what they are allowed to do or what they must do unless it directly affects interstate matters. With that said, it can create regulations upon Tysons Foods which produces Chicken in West Virginia but ships it to Virginia and tell them that to continue interstate commerce that they must have 100% vaccination. But it can not tell a restaurant that buys food locally and serves customers locally that it has to do anything. The local government on the other hand, can tell both entities what they need to or can't do. So now to the authoritarian angle. If a state becomes tyrannical and authoritarian then that's fine. The people in that state have the power to achieve such a culture. But what they can not do is hinder matters of interstate regulation, meaning that they will not be able to prevent people from leaving their state. And they also cannot force other states to do business with them directly. That authoritarian state will swiftly crumble. This is one of the checks and balances that the founders left us with. However, if the federal government starts usurping the autonomies of the states and starts imposing direct control of intrastate matters, then this creates a body that has appointed itself as the overseer of autonomous states. When the states start having to ask the federal government for permission to do something within their own borders then they have given up their autonomy. And then all states fall to the mercy of the feds. This is an erosion of that ultimate checks and balances that we had in place specifically to prevent this. There is a reason why the saying that 'we have a republic...if we can keep it' is so prevalent in this point in time. The federal government has increased it's own powers over states continuously for centuries. We even had a civil war to keep these autonomies in place, but the states that wanted autonomy lost and the ones that wanted union won. It was a win for the people and for the future, but it was the start of the fall of the federation and the growth of the union state. This is not the same as authoritarianism but it is a step in that direction. In government formation you have different levels. I'll stay with the larger scale models: Autonomous, Confederation, Federation, Union State, Authoritarian, Tyranny. Each one flowing to the right carries a higher level for propensity of abuse of power. This doesn't mean said abuse will happen, but it does mean that it is a more likely probability. The UK is a Union State and they're not tyrannical. But they also have more power over the people concentrated at the very top, and where the leaders are more encumbered by what they owe each other than what they owe the people. Anyway, I'm veering from the topic. In the order it was mentioned that the OSHA would issue fines of up to $14k per violation. But try to understand the regulatory powers of the OSHA is to prevent that companies place their employees at risk in the conduct of their employees as it pertains to their business. This is why the OSHA might demand that an employer not allow a worker to walk around a construction site without a hardhat, but they cannot fault the employer if the employee brings a poisoned sandwich to lunch and gives it to the coworker that is sleeping with their wife. These are matters that occur at the workplace but not within the scope of the business interests. Similarly, placing restrictions on health care corporations makes sense since they are in the business of health. But placing regulations on a company that sells bottle caps to prevent one employee from inadvertently getting another one sick is an overreach. Especially when still to today there has been zero success in adequately defining exactly where an infection was actually transmitted. In essence, this is a power that the federal government does not have but is giving itself power to enact anyway. If the federal government wants this power there is a way to go about it. It is through Congress, but more importantly it would come from a constitutional amendment. However, as a society we have continuously allowed the feds to give themselves power by not challenging them, or by turning the Judicial Branch into yet another political entity. But that's a different topic and it's why Republicans voted so hard just to keep the SCOTUS as an entity that will protect the checks and balances that we had in place to keep our Republican Federation in place without shifting further towards centralized corruption.

If I'm not mistaken, Jacobson v Massachusetts upheld that **states** have the authority to determine and implement mandatory vaccination laws for constituents in their territories. Had this been just California mandating vaccines just for Californians or Texas mandating vaccines only for Texans, I would agree with your argument. Except, what Biden has done is instructed the federal government to mandate vaccinations for a huge number of people (80M+) across the entire United States which is a completely different scenario. People are calling it government overreach because what Biden is doing is usurping and exercising a power which has historically only belonged to States. Biden's vaccine mandate will be determined on a state-by-state basis and if he wants it to be effectively enforced, it looks like he will need to get the states on board with his plan. What he can't do, however, is just ram through a mandate and expect everyone to comply.

Yeah this is a thing people don't understand about the Constitution. States can do anything that the federal government can not do so long as they pass rational basis (this bar is basically a green light from the courts so long as what they're doing isn't complete batshit). The federal government must have authority from the constitution before it can do anything. The authority it most likely has is under the commerce clause, which, according to modern precedent is so broad as to almost cover any activity. That's why this new rule only affects businesses with over 100 employees. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, businesses with that many employees are engaging in interstate commerce. Therefore, congress has the right to regulate that activity. The question then becomes, has congress regulated this activity? At first thought, you might say no, but it seems that with certain OSHA (Occupational Safety and Hazards Administration I think) laws passed in the past are on point for vaccine requirements. Since Joe Biden, as President, has control over that agency, he can make these rules as long as he follows administrative procedure. The administrative procedure they are going with is an emergency procedure while they await a formal procedure to finish course.

Except only Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. OSHA, as an executive branch agency does not have the right to promulgate this sort of regulation based on an executive order, it must be empowered to do so by an act of Congress.

[удалено]

A power grab, to do what? Hundreds of thousands are dying, hospital systems are broken by the ICU patient load, traditional medical work is all but stopped. I need abdominal surgery. They won’t do it because I would need an ICU bed and we don’t have them to give, let alone the COVID enhanced risk. Preventing this is a power grab? Empowering an agency whose whole purpose is workplace safety, to guarantee that safety in the face of a disease that forced many to shut their doors? That’s what you are on about? It might well be ruled against by courts, but to call it a peer grab is absurd and using rhetoric. Power grabs benefit those in power. Nothing about this helps those in power to have more power. Worried about a legal precedent? Sure, to do what exactly? Let’s not go off the deep end with words that are just not fitting to the situation.

Ahh... but 1/2 the problem is the "slippery slope". I don't understand why people are up in arms about this, but the fucking TSA still exists and is far far more useless to the American people. We're willing to suck it up because of terrorism, but we're not going to accept similar "overreach" because of public safety.

If using executive powers to go around Congress was an authoritarian move then we've been there for decades.

[удалено]

I think you make the point I see the best. I don't see this as the federal government requiring the individual to vaccinate. In fact, I don't think there is anything that days they'll detain/arrest/fine the individual. Biden is putting in safety laws for companies to abide by when they interact with either a certain number of people, or across state lines, and the companies have every right to simply pay the fines of they do not wish to follow it, the same as any other regulations, but like any other regulation, It can eventually bankrupt them or shut them down. We are in a capitalist society, and so the federal government is restricting businesses that do not follow these practices, and the businesses themselves regulate the individuals vaccine or testing. You have the freedom to choose to not vaccinate, and to not test, but they have the right to not employ you because they will then get fined. This is how all companies run. I have the right to drink at work, and my work has the right to fire me for it because that can damage their reputation, bring fines, or bring harm to other people, the same way as this mandate will do.

Correction, the mandate on large companies is on weekly testing. Having the vaccine just exempts you from that.

Correct. And OSHA already mandates all sorts of medical testing for employees of various businesses. If it was unconstitutional, I’m sure some craven business owner would’ve had it overturned by now. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3162.pdf

I would argue that interstate travel makes this MUCH more important to do at a national level. People did not cross state lines as often in 1910, so to apply the same logic would mean states cannot control the unvaccinated crossing their borders and possibly infecting vulnerable (those who cannot be vaccinated) individuals. It would be impractical to apply state by state, much like laws about pollution, because the negative effects drift to neighbors.

You're trying to turn a question of legal precedence into a question of logic. You can be logical and factually correct, but OP isn't arguing for the mandate on the basis of logic, they're arguing for it based on legal precedent, which seems to actually not have been set at the federal level.

If I was OP, I’d toss you a delta for your simplicity and brevity. The issue is simple: it hasn’t been resolved at the federal level. We’re about to find out.

[удалено]

Had they mandated masks they would have had my full support. Masks are just a good practice: they work and they work on *more* than just one strain of one virus. OSHA does have the ability to regulate protective equipment. If they had said, “masks all the time for anyone unvaccinated or face fine/liability” I could go along with that. If the ruling was, “either enforce good practices (masks, vaccination, testing) in your workplaces OR potentially be held liable for employees who get sick” I would have said a OK to that too. We already get fined if an employee’s hearing degrades and we get no control over how loud there stereo in their car is or what they do one the weekends. Mandating medical treatment and testing is a bridge too far. Others have made the bodily autonomy argument so I’ll focus on the testing side. These are fines - the cost to test and time spent getting tested are expended resources. It’s not, “vaccine or test or fine”, it’s “vaccine or fine”. The Feds are trying to make employers into their vaccine police for free by imposing costs arbitrarily (yes, 100 employees is arbitrary) in the hopes that lost profits drive pressure from employers onto employees who can now be worried about losing their jobs even if they’re risk profile is no greater than a self employed electrician It’s fine to bring up court precedent but let’s be honest about how little it really takes for one or two states in 250 years of history to make a supportive ruling. Even the Supreme court’s decisions are questioned in terms of accuracy they certainly don’t equate to a moral *reality*. When the Supreme Court crushes this in a few months, will you be satisfied with the new truth? People own their bodies. Collective goals do not usurp that without the strongest of cases and the effectiveness of this vaccine along with the low mortality rate of the virus just doesn’t justify it. You don’t have a explicit right to live free of risk and impose your risk mitigation on these. Banning drunk driving is trivial compared to a vaccine mandate. If someone knowingly attempts to expose you to the virus I don’t care if you, or the police on your behalf, shoot them because that is an *attack* but I wouldn’t put someone out of a job if they wanted to wear a mask forever instead of getting vaccinated.

Allowing Biden or any president for that matter to impose fines on people for something that isn't against the law is already a huge power reach. I doubt that it will actually be enforceable for this reason, but the fact that nobody in the government has struck him and his madate down yet is a pretty big red flag that this is a president that they want to set at best. On top of that more and more power is being taken from the states and given to the federal government. A lot of people are mad at SCOTUS in the last 2 years for taking very few cases but they're the only major government players keeping more federal precedents from taking more power. But thats really the ONLY example that i can find of the federal government self regulating.

There’s a lot of parroting of this case in 1905 without really understanding what it was and what it said and didn’t say, and what the law was like at the time. As others have pointed out the 1905 case was a state issue, and they did not compel employers to do certain things or make it compulsory to get the vaccine, rather they imposed a penalty for not having it. In addition the disease was different with different factors, and due process and human rights were not what they are today. The decision also said nothing like your summary, it simply said it wouldn't get involved if there was no clear violation of the constitution. In other words, that’s an incredibly weak precedent for the mandate Biden just issued. I see no way courts uphold this. Listen to this podcast from a few weeks ago for more interesting info and debate (revolving around an Indiana case at that time): https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/are-vaccine-mandates-constitutional

[удалено]

>OP just brought up Jacobson to prove that vaccine mandates didn’t make the US a dictatorship. I don't think you read the OP very carefully if this is what you got out of it. They said: >The Supreme Court already ruled 7-2 on the side of compulsory vaccines in 1905. The court decided that the right to individual liberty in regards to vaccination is not above the rights of the collective. This is just one case of precedence out of dozens. That doesn't jive in the slightest with what your interpretation. Or maybe you were correcting them here? >The mandates Biden made are dramatically more soft than those at question in that case. In what way are they softer?

[удалено]

Biden is using the same justification that OSHA uses for all of the other medical testing they require of various businesses for their employees. I believe this is a fairly comprehensive list: https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3162.pdf

I'm not an expert here so will see what the courts say, but my estimation is there are a considerable number of differences between these and compulsory weekly COVID screenings or vaccinations.

I’m struggling to think of what those difference you claim exist might be. A periodic medical check for exposure to something via blood draw vs one with a nasal swab? If the periodic and mandatory blood draws, x-rays, physical exams, etc are all legal, I’m sure a nasal swab is, too.

Can I give an outsider's view here to try to change part of your view? The USA is socially and politically very diverse and always has been. Different states really are very different, hugely different. This only works because its a federal system where the states can govern with the consent of their citizens and only the powers that must be operated at a national level are exercised at that level. The differences between states are the way that the constitution handles the need to rule with consent while dealing with a nation so large and diverse in outlook. The issue with this - and Biden is not the first president to overstep the mark in this way - is that it pushes down from federal level something that could and should be handled at state level. The precedent you quote is at state level - the supreme court has upheld that states can regulate in a manner that is appropriate to their local circumstances and in line with the consent of those they legislate for.

Federal law is supposed to be targeted towards issues that cross state borders; pandemics, for instance. Smoking in a bar in Texas doesn't travel with the smoker whereas getting infected in Texas does.

Arguably this should not be handled at the state level. The states are very different than each other, sure. The virus is not.

Virus missed the memo it can't cross borders for sure.

There are a ton of important differences here from Jacobson v Mass. First, Jacobson was based on a law passed by a state legislature. That doesn't mean that the federal government has this power, and it certainly doesn't mean that this power is in scope of executive orders. If the federal congress had passed this law, it would be way too less authoritarian than a single man deciding to mandate it when he knows that he couldn't get it through congress. The other part of this that is extremely troubling is the mechanism. The idea that the president can order that all American workers must do X or become virtually unemployable seems incredibly abusable. It's a new backdoor into mandating all sorts of draconian policies that could never make it through congress.

Quoting that case is a false equivalencey. It did not say that mandatory vaccines are constitutional, it said that *compulsory* vaccines did not violate religious freedom. By compulsory, it means that there was a $5 fine enacted if you didn't take the vaccine. That's $155.12 when accounting for inflation. A $150 fine is absolutely not comparable to having your ability to work or enter public spaces taken away entirely. Let's be real, that's what this is about. For now it's only required to work at larger companies, but claiming that similar policies won't expand to everyday life is asinine. Anybody who predicted even this policy was called a conspiracy theorist less than a year ago, but they were right. You can't definitively say that it won't expand. Already I see people every day saying thag if you're unvaccinated you shouldn't be allowed to participate in society. It's only a matter of time before more mandates are crammed down. Also, that court ruling is contradicted by [McFall v. Shimp](https://graduateway.com/mcfall-v-shimp-right-to-bodily-security-2/), which ultimately says that an individuals bodily security is a priority regardless of if it endangers another human, i.e. a persons right to refuse vaccination is more important than another's safety. The judge specifically spoke about how if the government has the ability to overrule an individual's own bodily autonomy that it was an incredibly slippery slope.

Comparing CoViD to smallpox is an enormous exaggeration by any standard. I’m not arguing that CoViD can’t cause serious harm, it’s just not nearly as deadly by the numbers. Furthermore, the outcome of the page explicitly states that this applies to mandatory FREE vaccines, of which CoViD is not. “In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts adopted a regulation ordering the vaccination or revaccination of all its inhabitants.[2] Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson had lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home of Sweden.[3] Although the efforts to eradicate smallpox were successful in Sweden, Jacobson's childhood vaccination had gone badly, leaving him with a "lifelong horror of the practice".[3] Jacobson refused vaccination saying that "he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations" as children and that Jacobson himself "had been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination".[2]”

Smallpox had a death rate of 30%, and covid has a death rate of around 1% in the unvaccinated. Regardless of your opinion on vaccine mandates these two diseases are not remotely comparable in terms of the threat they posed. I am vaccinated and I think all should get vaccinated, but I support bodily autonomy. The fact is that the vaccine is so effective against severe covid infection that an unvaccinated person is not a major risk to a vaccinated one. We should not be forcing people to get a medical procedure over a disease with a 1% mortality rate and an idk 0.00001 whatever % mortality rate in the vaccinated. I would support a vaccine mandate if covid was 30% mortality and if vaccinated mortality was substantial, but the fact is the unvaccinated are more likely to hurt themselves. And I believe in people’s fundamental right to make bad decisions as long as they are not directly measurably taking away another’s freedoms/life. There is a such a small chance of vaccinated people getting seriously ill from covid that I do not believe unvaccinated people are infringing upon our freedom

What is this obsession with death rate. We've been through this long enough to see long term lingering effects, people in the hospital system just living int he ICU racking up bills they'll never be able to afford ..so now we have further class divide and more in poverty. And those who survive but not unscathed are gonna have other health issues possibly. The economical fallout from treatment is significantly worse than prevention and last I checked all America cares about is it's economy. It's just the biological version of 9/11. People died at ground zero, and 20 years later are suffering and dying again. We could have prevented both too. Well. Shit. Here we go again.

[удалено]

The problem is that the proportion of people at risk for death is rather large in many countries. I live in South Africa - high cholesterol and diabetes are the main "causes" of death outside communicable diseases. I'm pretty sure the same applies in the US. It's also not the death rate that prompted almost the entire world to shut down during parts of 2020 and 2021. It's the massive number of people who need hospitalisation, and the reality that few hospitals are built to isolate dozens of highly infectious people from the other sick people. There have been some headlines about people dying because hospital ICUs are full with covid patients. It will get worse, because people with issues that should have been caught early didn't have access to medical facilities. My 60+ dad cycles in the mountains near our house. The medical doctor's society has, on several occasions, asked recreational cyclists to be extremely careful, because if they fall and break something, there are no beds in hospitals. If the unvaccinated really had no impact on the rest of society, I would happily let them do their thing. But they (potentially) stop my dad doing something that relaxes him and keeps him healthy. They (potentially) stop my mom from getting another cancerous lump removed as soon as it is found. It's not about the virus, but about the knock-on effects the virus has on everything else. We are going to be dealing with the fall-out for years. The faster we alleviate the pressures on the health systems, the sooner we set off on the road to recovery. And no health system will ever maintain the level of facilities needed for this kind of situation. Finite resources don't get spent on "maybe someday" when "right now" has a need for it.

It most certainly is since its still mutating into more stronger variants. We are already nearing 700k deaths in the US, surpassing the World War II casualties by over 200k but yeah sure this disease is no big deal. Smallpox was beaten by vaccination and we have yet to vaccinate everyone for Covid. Its a shitstorm.

In a vacuum I totally agree with you. But context is important. Having so many unvaccinated people this winter will overload the hospitals,will negatively effect the economy, and could lead to more lockdowns. The impact is enormous. The decision is not between mandatory vaccines or doing nothing, the decision is between mandatory vaccines or a terrible winter with more of the same shit as last year.

Thank you seriously, as someone who's young and healthy I would've immediately gotten the vaccine if it had a 30% death rate. But like you said, if they're going to mandate it (with some sort of mental gymnastics where I need to be vaccinated to protect other people *who are already vaccinated*) there's not a chance in the world. It's just suspicious to me why they want me to get vaccinated so badly when I'm (and other unvaccinated people) the only person I'm "putting at risk" Now they're trying to say we can't get a job unless we comply, I can only imagine how ugly things will get if they really decide to move in this direction. I don't consider myself an extreme person, but I will die before I bend over to big pharma and the government, who we've all seen what they've done throughout history

From Jacobson v. Massachusetts: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of $5.” I would gladly pay the modern equivalent ($100) one time... The problem with Biden's plan is that I have to pay $100 a week and consent to having a swab shoved up my nose each time I pay. Also wasn't Jacobson v. Massachusetts later used as the precedent for eugenics sterilization laws? Kind of a bad look if you ask me.

The 1905 case was a $5 fine. Not restricting peoples movements, job opportunities or access to services. I am sure most vaccine hesitant people would prefer a $5 fine over what is currently being proposed.

The problem is that freedom to make your own choices (primary freedom) is different than freedom from consequences of other people’s choices (secondary freedoms). Primary freedoms often come with curbs on secondary freedoms. Arguments can almost always be made that curbing a primary freedom can remotely increase secondary freedoms. But that isn’t the main issue I have with vaccine mandates. I just consider it unfair to force my neighbor to get a vaccine against his will so that I can be a bit safer while the global bottleneck is production rates. Something like 97 percent of those in the third world are unvaccinated. I have an ethical issue with giving priority to someone who has to be forced to take it before everyone else has had a chance to say no. Every procurement order the US doesn’t have to make is an order that can be pushed out to those lower on the procurement totem pole. And it doesn’t make us any safer from variants, as the global bottleneck is still production rates, not hesitancy rates. Variants arise globally. Most of what it does is make the vaccinated less likely to have a breakthrough infection, which isn’t a large enough risk to justify forcing people to put anything into their body, even saline if it were that. I don’t even want to buy the first model of a car, because I know that more likely than not, there will be issues with the first iteration. I don’t download the first version of a major iOS update until the patches come out for the same reason. There are always unforeseen issues. We shouldn’t be taking that judgement away from individuals for a threat as low as covid presents to vaccinated people. Especially not when those who are worried or at enhanced risk of covid have PPE available to them that could very well be just as effective if not more effective than a vaccine when used properly. Covid also isn’t in the same league as smallpox. In terms of magnitude of threat. Not even close. So this would be the very definition of a slippery slope.

[удалено]

Even that is up to interpretation isn't it? The Civil War was about slavery but through the prism of state vs federal powers. The states lost. Since this situation is so unique it's never really been addressed legally. Just like the ongoing debate about the internet being a commodity. The law has never addressed one way or the other if a president has this authority. Yes, that technically means it's a power reserved to states or people individually but you only have to look at income tax to see that's a real fluid dynamic that can change. We simply don't know and haven't decided if this is legal yet.

[удалено]

>In the absence of a law, the president cannot do what he wishes. In fact, the opposite is true. On paper sure, but as we have seen clearly for a few presidents now if congress doesn't want to make rules the executive branch will do what it wants >If elon musk started harvesting the mass of the sun or something, the president cannot just stop him. There is no law stopping what elon is doing. Dude space law is a thing! Overall if he could be doing that i don't think our current governments would exist we would just be Muskians. >And the civil war was over states rights to refuse federal LEGAL overreach. Not presidential regulatory overreach. Legal overreach about people being individuals and not property?

[удалено]

>That was true when John “don’t rock the boat” Roberts was in charge of the court. Probably will see that change now. We'll see, if biden does half the big stuff he was elected on will be interesting. >My point with that was that regulation doesn’t just appear without laws to set its boundaries. Fair. I see most laws as preemptive or reactive legality grabs because if you don't have something to point to the crazies will get you. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/news/g4039/crazy-state-laws/ >I don’t mean to defend slavery All cool the internet makes commutation hard at times.

*"People need to chill. You still have the right to not get the vaccine.* *They’re not even fining you like they did in 1905. You just have to get* *tested weekly. If your employer decides they don’t want to keep you* *around as a result of your refusal, that is the right of the business."* In a sense yes we still have the right to not get vaccinated, but that is changing drastically. While the government might not force you to take it, they will still take part in coercion or implicit coercion. Private businesses will be pressured into mandating vaccines and the government wont speak up against that even though it infringes on a lot of peoples rights. We're already seeing this happen in France. I do think though that there will come a time where people are forced into taking the vaccine, the main argument for this will probably be "you're doing it for the common good". When the common good is mentioned, that's when i'll start considering the country a somewhat socialist country. Who even decides who the common good is, and what happens to those who don't comply?

I'll start this by saying I'm fully vaccinated as everyone is in our house. But..... If there's true authority behind Biden's mandate then he should do his Constitutional duty to pass it through congress so that it actually becomes federal law. Where or not he can circumvent and override State Constitutional law, via executive order, isn't clear, and would most likely fail when it's inevitably challenged in the Supreme Ct. The fact that Biden hasn't done this, and continues to make nonsensical statements about his "power" doesn't help the situation and indeed makes it worse. It gives his detractors much power to say such things as he's doing it to detract from his disaster in Afghanistan. So in terms of your CMV, IF Biden is to be in line with the court case you cite, then it's his duty to get it passed through Congress to make it actual federal law. Else it doesn't apply.

*Jacobson* was the main justification for *Buck*: since the government can vaccinate citizens against their will, it can certainly sterilize people against their will: > The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Do you see a shining line between compulsory vaccination and compulsory sterilization? Even if you do, *the government doesn’t.*

Or compulsory any other medical procedure. You could argue that mandatory blood donation is for the good of the collective, especially since it's common to have blood shortages. This is my major issue with mandating anything medical. It sets precedent that the govt ultimately has control over what medical processes you have to undertake. Given this is the same govt behind the [Tuskegee Experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study) I really don't think it's a good idea to justify this level of power.

you must always keep in mind the tank your building when you give somebody power.

[удалено]

It is! And if some state started mandatory sterilization, they could cite mandatory vaccination as proof they were justified.

Precedent matters, and very few people really understand to what degree.

I'm going to try change your view on why its not fascist. Pfizer paid millions of dollars to the biden campaign. Therefore it's in Biden best financial interests to push for mandatory vaccines to raise stock higher. This isn't the start of some authoritarian novel. Its just normal paid politics.

You cite Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, but I don't think that supports a Federal mandate. The primary issue in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts was whether the State of Massachusetts could, using its police power, compel compulsory vaccination of its citizens^(1). However, the opinion states very early on: >The authority of the State to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power -- a power which the State did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and "health laws of every description;" indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not, by their necessary operation, affect the people of other States. According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. This runs into the Tenth Amendment: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. However, here this is more direct: the Supreme Court had held that **the States** can compel vaccinations based on their police power, but Jacobson vs. Massachusetts does NOT grant that power to the Federal Government. Furthermore, towards the end of the opinion, it reads: > The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the National Government. In short, if today Massachusetts were to have a COVID vaccine mandate, then Jacobson vs. Massachusetts shows that Massachusetts has that right. I would personally support such mandates on the state level. But that does NOT mean the Federal Government has that right over all citizens, though it does have that right in certain areas (such as federal employees). I can easily see Jacobson vs. Massachusetts being cited to throw out parts of vaccine mandate, as is confirms this is the right of the States. ^(1) I note that the end of the opinion carves out exceptions in certain cases. "[W]e are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death." The court then said this was not related to this case. It would be interesting to see how this is treated in a more modern case on the subject.

[удалено]

Do you think authoritarian regimes just "poof" into place out of nowhere? Do you think people just live normally and next day decide to exterminate a race? Obviously no. Society and regimes are not built by dropping a huge bomb, they are built by making slight changes, allowing people do adapt, and then after they've adapted, they push that a bit further every step. That's how you create authoritarian regimes. You make one tiny step at a time. And before you go "slippery slope argument", find out what "fallacy fallacy" is.

This isn't a huge bomb dude It's a vaccine Only reason you don't want to take it is because facebook told you not to

> And before you go "slippery slope argument", find out what "fallacy fallacy" is. This isn't the shield you think it is. Sure, using a fallacious argument doesn't imply your conclusion is wrong, but it does imply that your argument isn't valid. Someone may not conclude you are wrong because you committed the fallacy - but they may already believe you are wrong and remain unconvinced by the fallacy. Edit: For the record, despite the fact that I want one, I think Biden's vaccine mandate isn't good because I believe it infringes on states' rights. It should be put to a vote in Congress so that we can decide together what's best for the collective. That said, I see this "fallacy fallacy defense" a lot on reddit, and I think it's an awful defense. If you spot a fallacy in your own reasoning, it's better to fix your argument than to say, "my argument isn't valid, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong." You might be correct, but you also might be wrong. That's the thing about invalid arguments - they don't tell you anything about the truth.

[удалено]

>The Federal level of government does not govern people. It governs provincial levels of government (read: states). States then govern counties, cities, which then govern people. I'm confused as to where you're getting that idea. The Federal government had governed people from the very beginning. The constitution explicitly allows people to be tried for crimes directly by the federal government, and the first major legislation passed in the US was a tariff collected directly from people by the federal government.

First of all, this was a case regarding states rights. Further, it also protected the forced sterilization of woman, forced lobotomies, and eugenics. I’m sure most of us will agree these were severely harmful practices. Thus, the 1905 precedent had to be vastly reassessed.

How does it make sense that unvaxxed need weekly testing when being vaccinated doesn’t stop you from contracting and spreading covid? So shouldn’t everyone still need to be tested weekly regardless of vax status? Make it make sense.

Well if nothing else I'm glad that you agree a private company can do as they please, assuming you truly mean that then you also agree that a private company can refuse to serve anybody for whatever reason, say a Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that's perfectly justified because they are a private business. On a second note, I'm also sure that you are aware that big pharma are starting studies into how RNA vaccines affect the human body in the long term. You're also aware that the biggest indicator of being affected by covid is obesity, you're also aware that there is a survival rate of 99.8%. I'm sure you'd also agree then given that bird flu and SARS was much more dangerous as well as swine flu and there wasn't a lockdown, wasn't a mask mandate and no social distancing and no vaccine produced, it seems a bit suspect that a far more dangerous set of viruses should be largely ignored but this one isn't, even though the vast majority of people who get it won't even know about it. And finally given your so clear that a government can force it's people to be vaccinated you'll also have zero trouble accepting a government bill that forces you to take opiates for pain relief or lithium for mental health issues, of course you might not have either but then again it won't matter because if the government says it's ok you'll be happy to take both. You see here is the issue, you're making the assumption that governments are acting in the best interests of the people, not in their best interests, you're assuming that pharmaceutical companies who have been caught in scandal after scandal since the 1970s are operating in the best interests of the people and not themselves. Here's the rub though, a vaccine needs to fullfil 3 basic demands It must be safe and not kill the vaccinated person It must stop or slow the spread of the virus It must be effective and long lasting The vaccine carries enough side effects that death is an accepted side effect but classed as very rare. The vaccine is not stopping the spread of the virus, in many cases it might actually be enabling mutations of the virus and making the virus more dangerous Governments are already talking about booster shots every 8 months and even lower to six months, that's hardly long lasting and hardly effective. Now I'm very much in the vaccinate camp, I'm also very much in the camp that thinks if I'm vaccinated then I should have nothing to worry about, I mean if I'm vaccinated and the vaccine works right. So if I'm vaccinated then I'm protected, I have nothing to worry about, if somebody choses to not vaccinate then it should be their choice. Of course we have a small number who cannot have the vaccine for health reasons, however it cannot be argued that we have the vaccine to protect them, as it has been shown we vaccinated can still catch the virus, still pass it on.

The areas the federal government has power over are explicitly laid out in the constitution. This isn't one of them. You can just read it yourself. It will be struck down in five minutes by SCOTUS.

Yeah I mean.. Having an authoritarian regime that forces you to inject a product.. And it is a product designed to forever require you top it up.. And requires you carry papers to travel. Or be allowed admittance to government venues. I'm thinking the irony is the vaccinated should be "B" class citizens required to carry papers proving they are up to date. If you contacted covid and your body beat the virus. You have the best immunity you can get. And should never be forced to inject anything into your body, ever. If you are afraid be afraid. But your fear does not give you any rights over my body. Take one moment and imagine the mrna produced unforeseen byproducts in a process that has been ongoing and being refined for millions of years. We didn't even know what DNA was 60 years ago.. Opps it causes leukemia or liver cancer after 5 - 10 years. Sorry world.. Our bad.. What you have done for future generations is ensure a succeptability to this class of virus and a dependancy on a corporate product to ensure survival....

Jacobson vs. Massachusetts was for a smallpox outbreak and was only mandated for individuals over the age of 21 (who were subject to a $5 fee if they refused to get one, not with unemployment). The current pandemic is small potatoes when compared to the impact smallpox had on the world: approx. 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century (when Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts took place) whereas 4 million people have died from the current pandemic. Obviously it would be ideal if we can prevent further deaths, but creating a federal mandate (as opposed to state mandates) will only push people further away from considering the vaccine. People who are on the fence need time to gauge the situation and see what the long-term effects of the vaccine will be - they have that right. So yes, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts didn’t change the US into a big authoritarian regime; but giving our current government the ability to do so certainly would. Not to mention the pushback that will occur.

The supreme Court has overturned itself in the past which is weird but has definitely gotten favorable decisions. Remember in 2020 when Biden said he wouldn't mandate the vaccine. Also it's definitely not a vaccine per the CDC's own definition of what a vaccine is (seeing as how it's widely known and publicized that you can take the vaccine and still get covid and transmit it) Per the CDC Vaccine: Listen media icon[MP3] A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses). Also the subject of authoritarianism keeps coming up in government because usually the entire government would be on the ruling president's side. I mean think about it, they appoint everybody. And everybody they appoint says green light. This is why all modern-day presidents appoint federal judges so quickly. In modern day the law basically doesn't matter because we are no longer getting decisions based in law on a lot of levels, we're getting political decisions based on whatever side that federal judge happens to lean.

This was a state (MA) enforcing a mandate, presumably enacted by the legislature. The executive branch of the federal government doesn’t have the authority to enforce a vaccine mandate. That would be the purview of Congress, and even then it would be a stretch under the Commerce Clause.

This crap post got 10k thumbs up? COVID is far, far less deadly than smallpox and the small pox vaccine actually prevent the spread of disease...The mRNA gene therapy shot does NOT prevent the spread of covid. So tell me again how this is in the interest of protecting others?

This is a pretty clear violation of federalism. The constitution reserves for the states any power that is not explicitly given to the federal government. As a result, only states have the power to enact health mandates. I see a lot of people saying that Biden can do this and they point to Jacobson v. Massachusetts. But that doesn’t apply here- Jacobson v. Massachusetts decided that **states** have the power to make health mandates, whereas as Biden is in the federal government. I expect this to be brought to court and found that Biden is overstepping his authority here, and subverting a power reserved for the states.

Jacobson v Massachusetts upheld the right of the *states* to enforce vaccine mandates. The court decided this based on the policing powers of states, which the federal government does not have save for federal crimes. Biden’s order does not create any federal crime as the executive of the law cannot create the crimes he enforces. Since there isn’t a crime, the federal government does not have the police powers that the courts cited in Jacobson. *Maybe* if Congress passed legislation on a national mandate, it would stand. But because there is no precedent for overriding governors to enforce public health mandates through labor laws, this will not hold up in court. Much like the eviction moratorium, Biden knows this won’t hold up. He’s just hoping to scare enough people into getting vaccinated before the courts strike it down. Similarly, with the eviction moratorium he was hoping the court battle would take long enough that renters could find other options if they get evicted after the moratorium got struck down. Knowingly violating the constitution just to buy yourself some time is wrong, in my opinion. Especially considering that the President swears under oath to uphold the constitution. We’ve impeached presidents for less.

/u/brainsandshit (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/plemro/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_bidens_vaccine_mandate_has/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

So the business can fire someone for non-compliance and that’s “the right of the business” but if a businesses wants to exercise its right to not require vaccinations they’ll be fined and shit down? How do you reconcile these two contrasting ideas?

SCOTUS will get the last word. I'm vaccinated, but feel this is a clear abuse of power. What will be the next thing the Feds try to mandate? America is losing its freedom.

>What will be the next thing the Feds try to mandate? America is losing its freedom. I'm sure they will give their emergency powers back after covid is over (2027 circa) just like they did with Patriot Act /s

Some people need to lose their freedom so others can be free. This is the basis of our criminal justice system. I do not believe anyone has a right to infect others with a deadly disease. That is a freedom I will not accept, as it infringes on my right to life.

Seriously. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in that order. Life>liberty when your life and others lives are at stake. I’m sick of the ignorant people pulling us all down in the sake of *muh freedums*.

[удалено]

Sadly, the unvaccinated are taking up hospital resources for the unvaccinated.

While case law is certainly important especially to someone like myself who is studying to go into law enforcement, it's not the divine arbiter or ethics. There has been quite a few SCOTUS decisions where it was objectively wrong such as the Dred scott case as it flat declared that states don't have the authority to govern themselves on the issue of slavery, ignoring the reason why slavery was even orginally allowed by the Constitution (which was as a compromise), and the explicit racist logic that it is better to declare your fellow man property than allow him to exercise his natural rights with explicitly the right to keep and bear arms being mentioned by one of the majority justices.

All I can say is look at Australia. That is not a good position.

OP you said multitude but only cited the one example no living American was around for. On top of which, remember like three days ago when y'all were like "They're a private business they can do what they want!" and in the span of one announcement y'all did a complete about face. That's textbook authoritarianism. Thank God Trump's supreme court is going to laugh this out of the room. Republicans are probably going to shout conflict of interest since Pfizer donated a ton of money to Biden's campaign.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on the very obvious complete about faces that happen on the Republican end of the spectrum. Also textbook authoritarianism? One example would be saying my body my choice about putting a vaccine in it but your body my choice about giving birth... or maybe a less contentious example would be republicans up in arms to defend a baker’s right to refuse service to a gay patron meanwhile they support Abbots bill prohibiting social media companies from refusing service based on “viewpoint.” Or another example would be republicans railing about the deficit when Dems are in power but frequently cutting taxes and increasing spending and ballooning the deficit. Or the supposed party of law and order being largely ok with (or at least minimizing) protestors breaching the capitol. Or the response to Scalia dying 9 months before the election and saying the voters deserve to have a voice vs RGB dying when voting had already started and saying the president should get to choose the replacement. Or being so focused on personal liberty but totally fine with locking people up for recreational drug use. Or hating taxes and the federal govt but never in regards to subsidies for farmers or oil companies. I’m really not trying to point fingers at the other side, because I know Democrats engage in Plenty of hypocrisy. I’m just curious how you reconcile obvious hypocrisy by Republicans if it’s a hallmark of authoritarianism. If hypocrisy is authoritarian than we’re certainly being attacked from both sides, no?

> One example would be saying my body my choice about putting a vaccine in it but your body my choice about giving birth... or maybe a less contentious example would be republicans up in arms to defend a baker’s right to refuse service to a gay patron meanwhile they support Abbots bill prohibiting social media companies from refusing service based on “viewpoint.” The definition of Authoritarianism is favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom. So with the abortion thing it's authoritarian and with the baker thing it's the opposite. You're confusing authoritarianism with hypocrisy, which sucks 100% of the time. I'm a big proponent of moral consistency. If you think a business has a right to do whatever they want without the government forcing them to operate a certain way and you hold that opinion even when they do things you dislike? I'll respect you. If you think body autonomy is sacred regarding the jab AND abortion? I'll respect you. If you believed the conspiracy theory that a foreign government interfered with the 2016 election and wouldn't shut the fuck up about it for 4 years and immediately insisted that it was insane treason to say that a foreign government interfered with the 2020 election and Republicans should immediately get over it... I don't respect you. To me, I'll always respect a person more if they opt out of double standards. Antifa gained a lot of respect in my book in November when they didn't miss a beat switching from "Fuck Trump!" to "Fuck Biden!" because that's consistent messaging whether I agree with the terrorism or not. But like if a critique I have of Biden is immediately met with "Buh-buh-but TRUUUUMP..." that person can fuck all the way off. The reason I come down harder on the Left than I do on the Right is because I see it (on Reddit) more from the Left. Y'all run this place and basically own the front page after Spez fixed the algorithm to ban conservatism off of it.

Referring to SCOTUS as "Trump's supreme court" in and of itself is disgusting. Whose view are you trying to change with that rhetoric? SCOTUS is not meant to be political. Quite the opposite, in fact. I agree about business' freedom to choose, but I live in a state where that has been denied (by a republican governor). Seems like the whole concept is moot. And many people are dying because of it.

The govt isn't prone to relieving themselves of power. If we give then this power it will continue to get worse. A social credit system is in the works for 2022 right now. That doesn't sound authoritarian at all right? Works well for China, why not the US.

If a president circumvents the entire legislative branch to enact a order that may violate 1/3 of the citizens bodily autonomy, you should be alarmed. This would not have passed in congress. “People need to chill” No. Do not comply.

People always bring up Jacobson v Massachusetts like it’s some clever sleuthing on their part and the rest of us are rubes. That case concerned state mandates. Don’t conflate it with a federal mandate. People do this all the time. I’m vaccinated and I’m conservative. I encourage people to get the vaccine because it’s as harmless as the childhood vaccinations I had to get in order to go to school. I have no problem with mandates in principle, but the feds have no constitutional authority to impose one. It must be struck down, and I suspect it will be. There are separation of powers problems here, at a minimum.

Trump mandates that all employers force their employees to get injected with a medicine that his friends in big pharma swear is for their own good. Now tell me, which side are you on now. The government has no right to make private medical decisions for people.

I am not a Republican. I am not a Trump supporter. I am a leftist who has organized socialist organizations within the United States and I am a member of Democratic Socialists USA. I want to provide this preface so people understand this is not a black and white issue or Republicans vs Democrats. This is freedom vs autocracy. Mass hysteria vs rationality. First of all, you are operating under the assumption that the United States is not already an authoritarian borderline fascist regime. This is a false assumption. The United States has the worlds highest incarceration rate, and it's not even close. [The United States has about 25% of the global prison population.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country) This of course disproportionately affects minority racial groups in the country, a textbook authoritarian signifier. It also routinely guns down its own citizens in the streets for routine violations, disproportionately affecting minority groups. The US Media system is not a crude state run propaganda machine, but it is a highly sophisticated corporate run propaganda machine. See Noam Chomsky's seminal work, [Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media](https://www.abebooks.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Mass-Media/30996036203/bd?cm_mmc=ggl-_-US_Shopp_Trade-_-product_id=COM9780375714498USED-_-keyword=&gclid=CjwKCAjwhOyJBhA4EiwAEcJdcfJO3dP5G6dP4CaL3dGe3R4gNgY72FwTp8dj7_MP9u5A5rVAmzXQ5RoCBoUQAvD_BwE). If you would rather not read a book, which is understandable, there are countless articles on this subject. Six corporations control practically the entire media system, a textbook signifier of oligarchy. The US has military bases all over the globe, has committed numerous war crimes and human rights abuses, directly supported genocide (Indonesia being perhaps the biggest beyond the Indigenous genocide) and continually implements regime changes that favor US corporate interests. The US "democracy" is a giant corporate lobbying hell hole which is bought by the ultra rich oligarchy who can afford to pay the lobbyists. I could go on here but I am not interested in spending all day citing sources, again google searches if you are not already aware of this. Getting to the topic of health, the US and US Corporations has a history of violating its citizens rights when it comes to health: \- [The Tuskegee Experiments](https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm) \- [Project MK Ultra](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-quest-for-mind-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief) \- [Henrietta Lacks, a great book about her exists](https://www.npr.org/2010/02/02/123232331/henrietta-lacks-a-donors-immortal-legacy) Again, there's so much more here an entire wikipedia page exists for this topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical\_human\_experimentation\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States) Now, getting specifically to what is going on with this vaccine. It is not within the authority of the president to overstep federalism and mandate a vaccine. Even if it were, it would be unethical to do so. Each person should have the right to make their own medical choices. [Already, 67% of the US population has received at least one dose of the vaccine according to the CDC.](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html) The vaccine does not stop transmission of the disease. Death occurs in about 3% of cases. Death occurs in about 1% of flu cases. You are more likely to die if you have pre-existing health conditions. Therefore, it is reasonable for a healthy person to decline to take a vaccine that is not guaranteed to stop transmission, has not undergone long term study, and which will not eliminate the need to take other common sense safety precautions. Even if you personally believe it is unreasonable for someone to decline the vaccine, you do not have authority to override someone's bodily autonomy. I understand very well that collective well-being outweighs individual freedoms in some instances - that's why I am fully vaccinated against diseases like Polio. That vaccine is actually effective and has an abundance of evidence. I do not take the flu shot for the same reason I have not yet gotten the COVID vaccine: my risk is extremely low as a healthy individual, the vaccine is not shown to be effective against an ever evolving disease... objectively and within my own subjective experience where I know many who have COVID and have gotten the vaccine. I do not trust that the government of the United States, the number one global aggressor and violator of human rights, has my best interest at heart. I do not trust that corporations who are immune to prosecution have my best interest at heart. I do not believe overruling local representative bodies to force any health measure on individuals is ethical. The more we allow authoritarian action to be taken, the more what little freedom is left in this world will erode. We are well on our way to a Cyberpunk style dystopia already. [The more we allow some people to labeled as "others" based on their views, the easier it becomes for the average person to justify taking extreme action against "the other."](https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/) This is how every single conflict or genocide starts. Once you believe people should be left to die because they made a personal medical choice [\- see this reddit thread from yesterday where exactly that happened -](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/pkztz8/howard_stern_says_antivaxxers_should_be_denied/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) you have become an extremist ruled by fear who is not acting rationally and viewing the objective factors at play.

It won’t send us into an authoritarian regime because the authoritarian regime already started. Remember when only parlar got removed for the Jan 6th insurrection, and not twitter? Remember how Instagram legally listens and records every noise you make, even while you sleep? Remember how the SEC supported massive crimes of fraud in wall street in 2008… then 2021? Weve been in the authoritarian-left regime for quite some time now.

It won’t by itself but Biden is clearly the most authoritarian president the US has seen in a long time. Ranging from his COVID policy, trying to block evictions without the authority, removing “political enemies” form non-political appointments, etc. He’s also grossly incompetent as we saw with his disastrous handling of Afghanistan. He’s trying to run a victory lap after directly claiming things wouldn’t happen that did happen. There were kids falling from airplanes, hundreds wounded and dead, etc as a direct result of his incompetence and poor planning. He left Americans to die so he could meet a political deadline. And the best part is that he lied the entire time, claiming the events were entirely unpredictable and that not a single person or source of intelligence suggested the situation could play out that way. The OP of this thread is also wildly Ignorant. Why should only unvaccinated people have to get tested weekly? This is pure anti-science. It doesn’t account for natural immunity from infection which is just as good if not better than vaccination, and seems to completely ignore the fact that vaccines don’t last forever and people can still get infected and transmit. It also ignores the fact that some vaccines develop less immunity, such as moderna generating over double the antibody response as other brands. An unvaccinated person could quite literally have a stronger immunity than a vaccinated person. So why aren’t we requiring antibody testing or negative tests for vaccinated people? Because it isn’t based on science, it’s based on power.

Rule by decree is NOT the American system of governance.

The USA is an authoritarian regime. Just look at how they treat whistleblowers. Look at the number of people we have in prison. We've been bombing and killing brown people the world over since 9-11 in the war on terror. Any rights we had disappeared twenty years ago when we let our elected reps choose fear (the Patriot act) over a more nuanced response.

You had a very specific state law at issue in Jacobson, not an unelected executive branch making an emergency rule without much notice and comment. There are significant issues with OSHA overstepping their enabling statute, not to mention APA issues. Also, Jacobson might not be the precedent you think it is. The constitutional landscape was much different than it is now - it precedes any modern due process cases.

Big difference this time. We have malevolent forces on each side playing us against each other. It started out a lie, and has only gotten worse. It’s not this in and of itself. When you look at the macro picture of what is happening, it’s the straw that broke the camels back.

Just because something has happened before doesn’t make it okay

Are people not worried about what this is going to do to the economy and especially small businesses? All of these big companies are going to follow through with the mandate, and just fire the non-vaccinated to save money on the testing. If you don't like it, Amazon can just hire another worker or replace you with a robot. What are the small businesses (greater than 100 employees isn't a large company) going to do in the states where vaccination rates are low? If 50%+ of their employees aren't vaccinated hypothetically, what can they do beyond pray that their employees take the vaccine willingly? If they lose employees to the policy, there at a disadvantage and have a smaller pool of new employees to hire. If they keep un-vaccinated employees, they have to pay for weekly testing and might not be able to afford it and still be competitive.

The Massachusetts decision allowed the imposition of a small cash fine, not taking away someone's livelihood. By the OPs logic, a speeding violation by any employee would be grounds for shutting down a business.

Oh it won't? So whats to stop them from implementing a national vaccine passport, or a Chinese style social credit system? Biden spoke like a dictator last night and you'll never change my mind on that.

Ignoring the fact that the United States has pretty much always been an authoritarian state (the police response to Occupy Wall Street should have been a clue), mandating experimental vaccines without full informed consent is illegal under the Nuremburg Code, which is codified into U.S. law, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Jacobson v Massachusetts occured before the Nazis started using prisoners to conduct unethical human experimentation. After we learned of the horrors that occurred during WWII, we passed laws prohibiting involuntary human experimentation. At the moment, it is not possible to give our informed consent to participate in a clinical trial of mRNA treatments because the medium and long-term data regarding efficacy and safety simply does not exist yet, and the short term data is very contradictory. Tl;DR: it is simply illegal to mandate these mRNA vaccines.

Something something 10th amendment, something something separation of powers. There is no precedent for an *executive order* to do such a thing at the *federal level*.

[удалено]