ADVERTISEMENT

How do you think the Supreme Court would rule

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
15,786
5,829
113
if the government came out with a mandate that everyone has to get vaccinated for Covid? I was reading this article (long) about their ruling on the smallpox vaccine. The ruling said: "One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. " I don't know enough about the small pox vaccine to know if I agree with that or not. If the small pox vaccine was essentially perfect then not being vaccinated does not deprive a vaccinated person of their liberties since the vaccine protects them.
 
if the government came out with a mandate that everyone has to get vaccinated for Covid? I was reading this article (long) about their ruling on the smallpox vaccine. The ruling said: "One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. " I don't know enough about the small pox vaccine to know if I agree with that or not. If the small pox vaccine was essentially perfect then not being vaccinated does not deprive a vaccinated person of their liberties since the vaccine protects them.
Depends on gov. Been a lot of years but Feds have no authority outside of typical shit: fed land, crossing state lines. So they get fed ees and the usual stuff noted above.

So best approximation for mandates by gov is state govs where states already have constl authority.

Then private employers can do it as a condition of employment.

That's how to get masses vaccinated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
Depends on gov. Been a lot of years but Feds have no authority outside of typical shit: fed land, crossing state lines. So they get fed ees and the usual stuff noted above.

So best approximation for mandates by gov is state govs where states already have constl authority.

Then private employers can do it as a condition of employment.

That's how to get masses vaccinated.
But how do you think they would rule if the federal government issued a mandate that you have to get vaccinated?
 
It will be interesting to watch the lawsuits unfold. I heard on the radio yesterday that Washington state's mandate includes a provision that denies unemployment insurance payments for anyone who is fired for refusing to get vaccinated.
 
But how do you think they would rule if the federal government issued a mandate that you have to get vaccinated?
I haven't had a chance to read it but was it a state/local order being upheld?
 
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
what about it? the case was a state order. i believe states have a right to mandate. the federal gov doesn't. if biden thought it was constl we'd have a fed mandate instead of going through the labor dept. that's the federalism component. there cannot be a national mandate.

as to the 14th facts matter in cases. we have no facts similar to what's going on w/ these vaccines and hence no precedent.

i'm no con law guy so that's my c+ take on it
 
Last edited:
what about it? the case was a state order. i believe states have a right to mandate. the federal gov doesn't. if biden thought it was constl we'd have a fed mandate instead of going through the labor dept. that's the federalism component. there cannot be a national mandate.

as to the 14th facts matter in cases. we have no facts similar to what's going on w/ these vaccines and hence no precedent.

i'm no con law guy so that's my c+ take on it

 
Depends on gov. Been a lot of years but Feds have no authority outside of typical shit: fed land, crossing state lines. So they get fed ees and the usual stuff noted above.

So best approximation for mandates by gov is state govs where states already have constl authority.

Then private employers can do it as a condition of employment.

That's how to get masses vaccinated.
The masses are already vaccinated, in the US that is.
 

i don’t think the experts linked in this thread are using the proper analysis.

We must start with the notion that government at any level has no rights. No government has any right to govern. Period! Only the public has rights, and under our system the rights are a birth right and are inalienable.

But that doesn’t mean the rights are always absolute. The question will always be under what circumstances can a government limit rights for the common good. In the public health field we have a, strong history of emergency actions and orders to limit disease. These emergencies involve .everything from dealiing with a failed septic system to stopping the spread of communicable diseases. None of us would stand for quarantines and mandated treatment during cold and flu season. Those probably wouldn’t be legal. What is different with COVID at this point? True, it’s killed many, but the vast majority of those had pre-existing conditions or comorbidities we all know about. We also know a vaccinated person is protected from serious illness. Survival rates for normal healthy people is in the high 90‘s. For me, the question boils down to what is the benefit to a vaccinated person for another person to be also vaccinated. I tried to discuss this in another thread and the “math argument” suggests that the benefit is minuscule. I don’t think that’s enough to diminish rights. I’m setting aside for the moment the issue of whether there is even federal authority for this.

The subtext of this whole debate seems to be that vaccine mandates will eliminate covid from the planet like small pox or polio. According to the reading I have done, that will never happen. So we might as well get on with as much normalcy as possible.
 
Which means being required to have a vaccine is not unconstitutional. Who determines one must be might be in play, but there is no universal right not to be vaccinated.
I don't think he was saying it was unconstitutional to require a vaccine. If I read his response correctly he was saying it's unconstitutional for the federal government to issue a mandate.... but he can speak for himself.
 
Yep ... "the Cambridge board of health decided that all adults must be vaccinated for smallpox"
Jacobson was easily distinguishable if I remember correctly. A disease that killed the majority of people who got it vs one with a 99.8% survival rate and a vaccine that had been around for years and was proven safe vs one that hasn't been.
 
I don't think he was saying it was unconstitutional to require a vaccine. If I read his response correctly he was saying it's unconstitutional for the federal government to issue a mandate.... but he can speak for himself.
I do not know if it is unconstitutional for the Fed's to, I think that is yet to be determined. But someone has the power to is my point.
 
Jacobson was easily distinguishable if I remember correctly. A disease that killed the majority of people who got it vs one with a 99.8% survival rate and a vaccine that had been around for years and was proven safe vs one that hasn't been.
The Seventh Circuit relied on Jacobson last month in Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University.
 
The Seventh Circuit relied on Jacobson last month in Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University.
so what. you keep citing this case and then don't say anything. what are you trying to say? that a school can mandate it? okay. so what. that's not surprising.

do you think that case supports a national mandate?
do you think that case supports a mandate irrespective of certain fact patterns and stats for survival to certain groups.

that case you keep citing doesn't tell us much. it doesn't tell us much re federalism and the myriad fact patterns that change the balance re privacy etc. covid survival rates. age factors. novelty/infancy of the vaccines. degree of government action. that case is hardly dispositive of what will come down the pike if a national mandate is ever attempted.

So what do you think the case's holding can be extended to
 
Last edited:
Depends on gov. Been a lot of years but Feds have no authority outside of typical shit: fed land, crossing state lines. So they get fed ees and the usual stuff noted above.

So best approximation for mandates by gov is state govs where states already have constl authority.

Then private employers can do it as a condition of employment.

That's how to get masses vaccinated.
You are probably right, but there might not be much difference.

As an example, if the fed gvt can find a way to force states to legislate certain speed limits (as it has done several times in the past), it seems possible the fed gvt can find a way to force states to legislate vaccinations.

Such might not technically be a "federal" mandate but it would probably be called that anyway. We'll see.
 
I don't think he was saying it was unconstitutional to require a vaccine. If I read his response correctly he was saying it's unconstitutional for the federal government to issue a mandate.... but he can speak for himself.
Biden's mandate is limited to areas where the Feds have an interest, mainly Fed workers and contractors, and health facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds. The "reach" if there is one is the OSHA ruling applying to large organizations (100+ workers). They're using an "emergency temporary standard" that is based on a "grave danger" in the workplace (per Free Press article posted by Bowl). If a court is going to limit the mandate, my guess is it will be based on the "grave danger" language the OSHA rule is supposed to address. The mandates on the other groups (Fed employees & contractors and medicos taking Fed money) are on solid ground IMO. Of course (for @Sope Creek ) IANAL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bowlmania
As an example, if the fed gvt can find a way to force states to legislate certain speed limits (as it has done several times in the past), it seems possible the fed gvt can find a way to force states to legislate vaccinations.

In that case, the Feds threatened to withhold highway funding. IIRC, that was lifted several years ago. But they did the same thing to force all the states to raise their drinking ages to 21.
 
so what. you keep citing this case and then don't say anything. what are you trying to say? that a school can mandate it? okay. so what. that's not surprising.

do you think that case supports a national mandate?
do you think that case supports a mandate irrespective of certain fact patterns and stats for survival to certain groups.

that case you keep citing doesn't tell us much. it doesn't tell us much re federalism and the myriad fact patterns that change the balance re privacy etc. covid survival rates. age factors. novelty/infancy of the vaccines. degree of government action. that case is hardly dispositive of what will come down the pike if a national mandate is ever attempted.

So what do you think the case's holding can be extended to
The other poster suggested Jacobson is inapposite in the context of Covid vaccines. It's clearly not.

That said, I agree with you that Jacobson may not support a national mandate. Thursday's order, though (the one that applies to companies with more than 100 employees) is likely on sound legal footing.
 
That said, I agree with you that Jacobson may not support a national mandate. Thursday's order, though (the one that applies to companies with more than 100 employees) is likely on sound legal footing.

See my post #26 above. There are essentially three different mandates, on Fed workers & contractors, medicos taking Fed money, and organizations with 100+ workers. The OSHA ruling applies to that last one. If any of the three might be on shaky ground it's the OSHA ruling of a "grave danger" in the workplace from/to the unvanccinated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
My new question as I think about it, is it a mandate. The rule is get the shot or undergo weekly testing. So to me, the court will decide on whether or not weekly testing is legal. That seems less problematic to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
See my post #26 above. There are essentially three different mandates, on Fed workers & contractors, medicos taking Fed money, and organizations with 100+ workers. The OSHA ruling applies to that last one. If any of the three might be on shaky ground it's the OSHA ruling of a "grave danger" in the workplace from/to the unvanccinated.
Yeah, the first two are slam dunks. The third is a closer call, but I've got to think there were some bright, young executive branch lawyers who got very little sleep in the days leading up to Thursday's executive order. And some scholars have already weighed in on the likelihood of it being upheld. Finally, as Marvin noted, employees can opt for weekly testing so it's not a "vaccine mandate" in the truest sense. We'll see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
if the government came out with a mandate that everyone has to get vaccinated for Covid? I was reading this article (long) about their ruling on the smallpox vaccine. The ruling said: "One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. " I don't know enough about the small pox vaccine to know if I agree with that or not. If the small pox vaccine was essentially perfect then not being vaccinated does not deprive a vaccinated person of their liberties since the vaccine protects them.
The Feds are supposed to protect the borders, so requiring vax for travelers in & out of the country is OK...The Feds don't have constitutional jurisdiction over local Heath rules. States can require vax (like for school etc.) There are only a few expressed areas of power for the Feds-- The Constituition says they are to provide for the common defense, including foreign policy & immigration, establish a postal service and post roads for it, and to regulate interstate commerce (the implication is that they are to prevent states from impairing commerce)...The bulk of The Constituition is devoted to telling The Feds what they CAN'T do.

Even with a liberal POV that the Feds are to provide for the general welfare, possibly including regulation of healthcare, it's supposed to be done by Congressional legislation, not dictatorial executive orders.
 
With 70% vaccinated, why do we have more cases of Covid now than we did when we weren’t vaccinated?

I'm not certain we know for sure that we do, and even if that is the case I suspect the qualitative difference wee see with the Delta variant versus the original would explain much of it.
 
With 70% vaccinated, why do we have more cases of Covid now than we did when we weren’t vaccinated?
That would leave almost 100 million unvaccinated. So far we're just under 41 million confirmed cases of COVID since the beginning. It's not even halfway through the potential number with that many unvaccinated out there.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT