Have Democrats abandoned the 'my body, my choice' argument?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by kazenatsu, Sep 3, 2021.

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yep, true statement, odds are he would be alive today if he had taken the vaccine
     
    Bowerbird and FoxHastings like this.
  2. mswan

    mswan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2021
    Messages:
    6,361
    Likes Received:
    4,280
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    “Odds are” sounds more accurate to me than the original comment. Sorry to make a thing out of this, it just struck me the wrong way.
     
  3. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    2,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Abortion is not killing any human, fetus is not a human.

    Stop spreading fake news - one unvaccinated person can infect and kill many people:
    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak

    https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-transmission-overview
    "Researchers say that on average, every person who has COVID-19 will pass it on to 2 or 2.5 others. One study says that number is even higher, with one sick person infecting between 4.7 and 6.6 others."
     
    Bowerbird and FoxHastings like this.
  4. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really? YOU were the one who introduced vaccines, right there in YOUR OP... and now you pretend it's off-topic. The comparison with the "my body my choice" from the abortion topic is obviously with the vaccine mandates, and that's a point YOU made... but as soon as you're losing the argument, it's off-topic. Yeah, right.
     
    Bowerbird and FoxHastings like this.
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol::roflol::roflol:
    LOL So I stumped ya again and you're taking your toys and going home .....

    I am sure you didn't like the quality of my posts since they contained truth and facts :)

    Another poster:
    ""You have a tremendous ability to dodge inconvenient questions. """
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2021
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    :applause::applause::applause:
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2021
    CenterField and Bowerbird like this.
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    That's because there isn't one... :)
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No he isn't.
    Fake News. A universal federally mandated vaccine has never been imposed by the Federal Government. The Biden Administration hasn't cited any legislative or constitutional authority authorizing them to do so.
    That's within the Employer/Employee relationship. Biden is attempting to arrogate an authority that has never been granted to him.
    Why do you think that an authority held by a school is held by the Federal government? What is your understanding of the distinction between "enumerated powers" and "unlimited powers"? Do you think "enumerated" and "limitless" are synonyms?
    States with their police powers have a stronger argument than the Federal government and even with states, it's not an overwhelming one, yet Biden, with enumerated powers thinks he can override a State decision on this?
    Actually what's missing here is you exhibiting any understanding of Separation of Powers which secures our Freedom and Liberty in the American system.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    name a bigger liar then

    upload_2021-9-19_16-3-40.jpeg


    Agreed but what Biden has done cannot be called a mandate - not when it has an opt out option. And this article says it is all legal

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ul-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/

    Ooooh! I agree there certainly is a misunderstanding in relation to the separation of powers
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
    FoxHastings likes this.
  10. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why are you under the impression that I was talking about past federal mandates? I just said that vaccine mandates have always existed in this country under both Republican and Democrat administrations (and yes, federal vaccine mandates have existed before too, such as requiring the flu shot (with no testing op-out, mind you) to all VA employees, which is a federal organization. Sure, this one is broader, I don't ignore that, but it is done through OSHA and scholars say it's legal and does not represent a federal power grab over states. My point anyway with the hypocrisy, is that Republican governors are more than happy to enforce vaccine mandates in their states and have always done so, all red states have vaccine mandates. But when it's Covid, there's an uproar. Why? Because the issue is not vaccine mandates. The issue is the politicizing that has been going on around Covid.

    Your objection about employer-employee: this is being doing through OSHA and *is* employment based. Anyway, we'll see what the court says. But I'm NOT wrong when I point to the hypocrisy. Republican governors who spoke against this mandate, have vaccine mandates of their own in their states, and that's hypocritical, and it's a fact.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  11. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The topic is the current attempt at a federal vaccine mandate. Why are you surprised that brings up lack of authority as well as lack of precedent?
    Based on State Power, not Federal. Name 5 previous impostions of national mandates in the history of the Republic.
    That is the employer/employee relationship, not Federal/Citizen relationship. Yes, Employers can impose mandates, this is known.
    Cite the OSHA standard where Congress granted the President the authority to impose a vaccine mandate on citizens.
    For extra credit, cite ANY OSHA standard that only applies to employers with a 100 or more employees that does not apply to employers with 99 or less.
    For more extra credit cite a vaccine previously imposed by OSHA on ANY employer.
    Whoop-te-do. We have every regulation recorded in the CFR, you know, we write them down just in case some demented aswipe becomes President and thinks he can start issuing orders like a third word dictator. Cite the legal standard that authorizes OSHA to do this.
    I see you skipped right over the distinction between State police Power and Federal enumerated powers, but, your time was well spent studying medicine, so I'll see if I can dig up a good source in the event you want to understand this better.

    James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

    “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”​

    We live in a constitution-based federal system, "meaning power is distributed between a national (federal) government and local (state) governments."
    https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/roles-state-and-federal-governments/

    So, starting at the beginning, the vast history of humans has been anarchy or tyranny. The American Insight that led to the formation of our constitutional liberal democracy, the longest surviving Democracy in existence today is NO ONE HAS AN INHERENT RIGHT TO RULE. We have no monarch, no king, no nobility, no Lords nor Ladies. We all stand firmly on the ground, none over another in inherent authority.

    We as a group and only in those areas where there is agreement, grant OUR authority to government and we record that specific grant of authority by constitution or charter. For the Federal Government the States, joined together and on the basis of overwhelming agreement, granted certain listed powers to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has no other powers and cannot simply scoop up power when some numb-nuts thinks it would be a "good idea".
    And it's by police powers that States have imposed vaccines. The Federal Government never has imposed vaccines on the citizenry and I see no evidence We The People have ever granted it the authority to do so.

    Now you are a doctor and you have a scope of authority. And I'm sure you have practiced medicine in hospitals, which also have scopes of authority, one of which is maintenance of the bathrooms. Now say you eat too much ice cream and you go into a Bidenian brain fog and you declare your intention to have all the bathrooms painted in bright pink and lavender swirls and so you order it done.

    The Hospital and Community push back, explaining that you have no such authority. You attempt to explain that they are "hypocrites", and then cite numerous examples where the correct authority has repainted the bathrooms. Now, while you are correct that bathrooms have been previously remodeled, what is the point you are missing and why does your repeated claim of hypocrisy ring false?
    Wrong. The issue is an attempted arrogation of power by the Federal Government of authority reserved to the States and/or the People.
    Presidential Powers and Authorities are listed in Article II of the US Constitution. Power to enforce workplace regulation is not one of them. OSHA powers and authority come from a Legislative Act that grants Executive Branch authority, not inherent Executive Branch authority.

    When the Executive Branch claims to possess a particular authority, first one looks at Article II to see if the Constitution grants the President such power. If not, then one looks through legislative history to see if Congress has granted the Executive Branch the authority they are laying claim to. And if so, then Article I is reviewed to see if We The People ever granted to Congress the power they claim to be granting to the President. Congress cannot grant power it does not possess.

    Well our stuttering numb-nuts read the teleprompter and mumbled something about OSHA in his bumbling attempt to cite the source of the power he claims to exercise. EVERY authority granted by Congress to the Executive Branch via the 1970 OSH Act is delineated in 29 CFR. Tell me the standard number that authorizes the President to impose a vaccine mandate. Have you noticed that when I have asked you to cite the standard, that neither you, nor anyone else cites one? There is a reason for that. What do you think that reason is?

    Do you recall the reason that the Bumbling Fools Of The Biden Administration's legal team lost their attempt to arrogate the power to extend the Eviction Moratorium?

    The Supreme Court declared that the Executive Branch did not have the authority to issue this measure. They didn't wring their hands over whether or not it was a "good" idea. They looked for authorization. Did the President possess this power inherently? Nothing in Article II of the constitution would suggest that he does. Did Congress grant him this power? Here is how SCOTUS answered that question:

    “It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”​

    So, apparently the Bumbling Clown's Legal Team did cite some standard with generalized language that the President attempted to use to justify his attempted exercise of power and the Court was unimpressed. They saw no language from Congress specifically authorizing the President to extend the eviction moratorium, so he was barred from doing so.

    The Biden Clowns are in the same boat here, they are either extremely slow learners, or the entire thing was throwaway stray voltage to alter the national conversation from Afghanistan, with the mandate delivered the day before the NYT broke the story that Biden had slaughtered an innocent family with a drone strike, as the WH was assuredly given a heads up of when that story would be released.
    Nope. But hopefully you now have a clearer understanding of Governors State Police Powers, vs the Federal Government's Enumerated Powers.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  12. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    TLDR. You didn't catch my point anyway.

    You say OSHA doesn't have the regulations... well, last I checked they were said to be writing up the regulations. If you haven't noticed, the mandates had a starting date weeks away. By then OSHA will have the regulations. And no, it's not Federal to Citizen. It's OSHA-related Employer/Employee. There are no mandates saying that all CITIZENS need to get vaccinated. There are mandates saying that in working environments of more than 100 employees, the employees need to be vaccinated. And yes, scholars have been saying that this is constitutional and legal and within the president's powers because it's being done through OSHA. My guess is that the Courts will uphold this, which will result in you having egg on your face. If they don't, then I'll eat crow; I never minded acknowledging my errors. But we'll see.

    You can spare me your constitution lessons. It was never my point. I just said, mandates exist at various levels, both state and federal, and it's hypocritical for governors who implement their own vaccine mandates, to now be in an uproar about this just because it's Covid.

    Please don't start another huge rant about the Constitution, State v. Federal powers, police powers, etc. etc. because frankly I couldn't care less.
     
  13. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is an admission that no such authority currently exists within OSHA.

    So they claim they will "create it". Do you think they can just come up with any rule that pops into their pretty little heads? Where in the 1970 OSH Act did Congress authorized OSHA to implement a national vaccine mandate? Do you notice that in response to this question, you never get language showing that Congress granted the executive branch this power?
    Citing What legislative language?
    You make this far too personal. The Court is not going to authorize this without citing authorizing language. I know of no such language. You apparently don't either, though you think you know someone who does. Ask them. Or look through their explanation for it. If their explanation doesn't include it, ask yourself why. If the Court finds it and includes in in their decision, then we'll both know what it is, though we likely would have already figured it out by reviewing the briefs.
    It is the point. You don't understand the structure of our Constitutional Liberal Democracy. Do you think States and the Federal Government exercise the same authorities? Even within the Federal Government, the Executive Branch is not allowed to exercise Congressional Authority without Congressional authorization. That is why Biden's Bumbling Morons that make up his legal team, which by the way, have lost more cases, faster, than any president in history, lost the Eviction Moratorium.
    Fair enough.
     
  14. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Zorro
    PS - When I say frankly I couldn't care less, I didn't mind that I don't care about the Constitution. I do. Just, it wasn't my point.
    My point was simply that vaccine mandates do exist for ALL red states (actually all 50 states), and also exist for certain federal employees. I never saw any uproar about any of that. But now it's Covid, OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THEY ARE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID!!!! THE HORROR!!! MY FREEEEEEDDDDDOMMMS!!
    Frankly I find it fairly ridiculous.

    The Constitutional part and the legality/authority part are not for you and me to decide (unless you're a judge or a justice; I'm not). It will be looked at, eventually, and Court decisions will be known. If I'm wrong, I'll say so.

    Now what I can't understand is why you think this mandate is for CITIZENS rather than employees.

    Is a self-employed citizen subject to this mandate? No.
    Is a full-time student citizen subject to this mandate? No.
    Is a unemployed citizen subject to this mandate? No.
    Is a stay-home Mom citizen subject to this mandate? No.

    Clearly the mandate is not targeting citizens. You don't qualify for this mandate simply by having American citizenship. You qualify, if you work for certain categories of employers. This is crystal clear and for someone who is trying to teach me all sorts of lessons, you seem to be missing a quite essential point.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  15. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do understand, and no, I don't think it's the same authority. It was just a POINT I was making, for Christ's sake! I'm saying, regardless of the origin of these mandates and the authority that is behind them, THEY'VE ALWAYS EXISTED IN AMERICA'S HISTORY including in ALL red states governed by Republicans. Which makes the uproar hypocritical.

    Are you under the impression that these governors are protesting this because of the Constitution or State vs. Federal Powers, etc., etc.?

    Absolutely not! They'd be applauding it if a Republican president had proposed them. They are protesting because they figure that their supporters dislike anything that is related to Covid and hate Biden, and thus they score political points when they go against any Covid-containment measure especially since it came from Biden. It's as simple as that. The Constitutional speech is just the excuse.

    If they were serious about it, then they'd be revoking their own state-sponsored mandates. Not a single one of these red state governors tried that. Why? Because polio, measles, diphtheria, pertussis, etc., are not sexy like Covid.

    If you cancel a mandate for the polio vaccine you will get a handful of votes from some crazy anti-vaxxers, and you will lose a bunch of votes from concerned parents. But if you stop a mandate for Covid vaccine you'll earn thousands and thousands of votes from all the people who think that Covid is a hoax that stomps on their freedoms. THAT's what is going on, not anything about constitutional legality or states v. feds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  16. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. State Police Power differs from Federal Enumerated Power. If their powers differ, of course their exercise of that power differs.

    If you authorise someone to repair you plumbing and they try to sell your house, I doubt that you will be impressed by their claims that you are a "hypocrite" because you have previously authorized a real estate agent to sell your house. That has nothing to do with your insistence that the Plumber remain within their authorized scope.
    Employers have the right to mandate vaccinations. You have presented no evidence that the Biden Administration is authorized to dictate to some Employers that they shall mandate vaccination or testing.
    That it's COVID is not the point.
    They are welcome to educate and persuade, what is under contention is whether or not they are authorized to mandate. If they are authorized to mandate. There will be Constitutional or statutory language illustrating that. Where is it?
    Well, your theatrics in response for the request for authorization makes the point that you know of no such authorization. You have stated a few times that you have heard from "experts" that such authorization exists, so, provide the link and let's see how they answer the request for authorizing constitutional language or statutory text. If their "explanation" contains no such authorizing language, I have a pretty good guess as to why.
    They aren't oracles. They will cite authorizing text. If such text exists, someone should have some clue what it is.

    Just weeks ago, SCOTUS informed the Bumbling Biden Administration's legal team in a decision, issued June 29, 2021, that they "lacked the authority to issue an administratively-imposed nationwide ban on evictions, and that any such action would have required
    The OSH Act is over a 1/2 century old. That's not "new" legislation.
    If it has "clear and specific" authorization that empowers Biden to impose a vaccine mandate on employers, don't you think that someone would have some idea where this clear and specific authorization is located in the OSH Act?
    In a properly functioning Executive Branch, wouldn't they have looked it up before Biden announced it?
    Actually you are claiming that being an employee of a certain category of employees subjects one to federal control in a manner that others are not. That is a rather bold assertion. On what Constitutional or Statutory text do you make such an audacious claim?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  17. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, that was a typo that I had already corrected before your response; your post and my correction must have crossed each other. I meant looked at, not looked up. I meant that the Courts will look at it. And regarding links, when this came up, I posted a link to an article that contained the opinion of several scholars including professors of Constitutional Law in prestigious law schools. Sorry, I won't go fetch the link again. My obligation of substantiating what I say via a link, is perfectly fulfilled by posting the link ONCE. If you absolutely must have it, feel free to search my posting history and you'll find it.
    OSH Act.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  18. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. Such mandates have been imposed as a State Power, never as a Federal Power. Now Biden, who let's face it isn't all there, claims he has the power not only to mandate this to employers, but even to do so over the State's Objections. So he's not just asserting a novel possession of power that has never before been assumed or exercised, but he is also asserting the right to countermand the States position that they will not impose a mandate. That's quite a claim. And to ask where Biden supposes documentation for such sweeping claims of authority reside is perfectly proper and one cannot help but notice that no one is producing such authorization.
    COVID Vaccine Mandates are not just objected to by many governors they are FORBIDDEN by LAW in several States. That is the Elected Legislature has passed the law and the Elected Governor has signed it into law. Now the President, with no visible authorization from the Elected Congress has gotten it into his feeble head that he can just override all this by declaration. And in request for the Constitutional or Legal authorization for him to do so, the best you have is that someone will look it up later? Are you kidding me? And frankly this is no reflection on you, no one is giving you more to work with, as far as I can see no one has a better answer than that, which is my point.
    Now you are arguing a counterfactual rather than simply supplying the authorizing language.
    And now rather than simply citing the requested authorizing statute, you are engaging in mind reading.
    There is an old Legal Maxim:
    • If you have the facts, cite the facts.
    • If you don't have the facts, but have the law, cite the law
    • If you have neither the facts nor the law, Yell and Pound the Table!
    They are not arguing against the State's Police Power to impose a vaccine mandate. They are arguing against Biden's arrogation of a State Power that Biden does not have. If Biden wanted to be Governor and exercise State Power, he was free to run for a governorship. He did not. He ran for President. So, he is restricted to only those powers granted to the President and no one has furnished any evidence that mandating certain employers to mandate vaccines or testing is one of those powers.

    And in response to the request for evidence that the President possess the powers that he is attempting to exercise, you are doing a lot of yelling, pounding the table, mind reading and finding the thoughts you mind read to be profane, questioning motives, screaming hypocrisy, but, the one thing I can't help but notice that you aren't doing, is simply citing the requested authorization. That is the most interesting thing in your post.
    Lots of yelling, name calling and table pounding but no citation of authority.

    V-E-RY I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-I-N-G!

     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  19. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What part of "I posted a link to an article that contained the opinion of several scholars including professors of Constitutional Law in prestigious law schools" you didn't understand? I've already posted the link. I'm multitasking a bit while I watch the NFL and look at my Fantasy team. I'm not about to go fetch it again. If you must have it, do a search in my posting history; it's there.

    You're insisting AGAIN with the "look it up later" when I explained already that it was a typo and I meant look AT it later, that is, the Courts will. It's not the Biden administration looking it up (which by the way I'm sure they did) like you keep insisting. I simply meant that the Courts will look at it and will rule. Like I said, I suspect that the courts will side with the feds on this.

    Mind reading? Nope. It's called understanding the context.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just word searched it for "vaccine". The word is not used a single time.

    https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshact

    The conga line of clowns that make up Biden's legal team were just told, this summer, that they needed CLEAR SPECIFIC RECENT authorizing language from Congress in order to extend the Eviction Moratorium when they tried to cite some vague wording in a 75 year old statute as "authorization." They had no such grant of authority from Congress, and so they lost.

    Now, 10 weeks later, they are citing a 51 year old law as "authorizing" them to impose a testing or vaccination mandate on some employers, via an act that doesn't even contain the word vaccine or vaccination. You recently went on for some paragraphs expressing your low esteem for the IQ's of some. You may want to cast your evaluative gaze on Biden's "crack" legal team, because there seems to be a lot mouth-breathers in there.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  21. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why are you making an irrelevant point about Eviction Moratorium? Was the Eviction Moratorium done under OSHA? No. Focus, please. Stay on topic, please. If that's just a jab at the Biden administration, I've said over and over that I experience no obligation to defend Biden. I actually don't like Biden. I don't think he is known for being very competent. I do care about Covid, for the sake of my patients, my co-workers, and my family. So while I don't approve of a mandate, if this one results in a much higher rate of vaccination, I'll be happy, although I'm afraid it will have the opposite effect (enraged people will dig their heels and now won't be persuaded at all).

    Again, I'm confident that since a deadly infectious disease in the workplace is a matter of workplace safety, the Courts will side with the feds on this (regardless of the current language not mentioning vaccines; the language does mention workplace safety, and Covid is CLEARLY a workplace safety issue - as evidenced by my co-workers who have died of the disease). We'll wait and see. I wish you'd stop the repetition. Like I said, we do not know yet if this will hold or not. Some constitutional scholars who certainly know about this a lot more than I do, think that it will (others disagree). Whether or not they know more than you do, I don't know, since for all I know, maybe you're a professor of Constitutional Law yourself, or a federal judge or a Supreme Court justice, LOL. But if you're neither, then I'd say that it is likely that these Constitutional Law professors know more about it than you do.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  22. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's precisely on point. Biden, just 10 weeks ago, tried to use vague wording in a very old statute to claim authority he does not possess.

    He is doing the same here.
    Who cares if you like Biden? Whether you do or don't does not expand or contract his legitimate powers. Focus, please. Stay on topic, please.
    This is neither the first nor the last infectious disease to ever be contracted at the jobsite. OSHA has never issued a workplace safety rule that only applies to certain employers with the same exposure. They have never required an employee to go off site and get injected, or tested at their own expense. They have never recognized a workplace hazard and then only required large employers to address it.

    As for your co-workers, hospitals have the authority to impose vaccine mandates and have done so. This is Biden claiming that HE has the authority to impose the mandate on employers, though there is no historical precedent for such an invasive regulation of workers nationwide.

    Vaccine mandates, if imposed have by imposed by States, not the Federal government. Biden claims he has the authority to reverse state policies that provide workers with the choice to get vaccinated. Further, he is acting unilaterally, Congress has never expressly authorized the President to exercise such sweeping powers.

    The Court already told Biden to bugger off he tried to claim that a WWII federal quarantine law that dates back to World War II "authorized" him to extend the eviction moratorium. Congress doesn't sneak in massive expansions of national policy, as a Justice stated it: "Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes." If Congress ever granted the president the power to impose such a national vaccine or testing mandate, they would do so expressly—especially since such a mandate stomps on the states' sovereignty.
    We aren't trying to read the entrails of goats, we are looking for a clear expressed grant of power to the President of this authority. It either exists or it does not. Constitutional scholars can point to it, but they can't click their heels together and chant it into existence if it doesn't exist.
    They aren't in possession of a secret cache of documents that they can spring on us when the need arises. We write our laws down and publish them. This authorization either exists or it does not.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  23. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, here:

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/current-constitutional-issues-related-to-vaccine-mandates

    https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-10/bidens-vaccine-mandate-is-the-right-thing

    https://www.silive.com/news/2021/09...itutional-heres-what-a-legal-expert-says.html

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-vaccine-mandate-court-lawsuits/

    So, Zorro, you can say whatever you want, but many Constitutional Law scholars disagree with you. And many think the Courts will uphold the mandate. If they are ultimately right and you are wrong, or the other way around, I don't know. I do know that these people know the Law better than I do, so I respect their opinion.

    One of your favorite arguments is that OSHA has never tried to regulate vaccines. Well, there's a first time for everything. The fact that it hasn't been done before, has no bearing on whether or not it can be done, as long as the legislation grants to OSHA the power to do that, and these scholars think that this is the case. We'll see.

    I see this as similar to all the uproar the anti-vaxxers started, that an mRNA vaccine had never been approved for human use. Well, until the first one was.

    We used to have horses as the engine for transportation. We had never had automobiles. Until one day, we did.

    We used primitive calculators that looked like old typewriters. We had never had personal computers that do calculations much faster and better. Until one day, we did.

    It's called scientific progress.

    So, certain rules and regulations have never been entered in the books... until the day when they do. Jurisprudence evolves. The fact that it hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
    FoxHastings likes this.
  24. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  25. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FoxHastings likes this.

Share This Page