Left Wing TYRANT George Washington Mandated The Continental Army Be Vaccinated in 1777

[DrHoops]

For smallpox. Yes, and the vaccine they used was completely experimental...since the eventual cowpox-based vaccine wasn't invented until 1796. The crude vaccine they used in 1777 had a fatality rate of 5-10%. But George Washington, the father of our country, made the decision that the risk was better than not being vaxed.

How Crude Smallpox Inoculations Helped George Washington Win the War | HISTORY

As commander of the Continental Army, Washington faced dual enemies: the British and smallpox. So he made a risky call.

www.history.com

How dare President Biden provide US citizens with a free vaccine that was started under Trump and protects almost everyone from COVID death? Biden must have some sort of ulterior motive for trying to protect Americans from dying an agonizing death. The people in poor countries around the world are just suckers and sheep for wanting to have the vaccine that you can walk into CVS and get right this second without waiting.

 

[DANC]

For smallpox. Yes, and the vaccine they used was completely experimental...since the eventual cowpox-based vaccine wasn't invented until 1796. The crude vaccine they used in 1777 had a fatality rate of 5-10%. But George Washington, the father of our country, made the decision that the risk was better than not being vaxed.

How Crude Smallpox Inoculations Helped George Washington Win the War | HISTORY

As commander of the Continental Army, Washington faced dual enemies: the British and smallpox. So he made a risky call.

www.history.com

How dare President Biden provide US citizens with a free vaccine that was started under Trump and protects almost everyone from COVID death? Biden must have some sort of ulterior motive for trying to protect Americans from dying an agonizing death. The people in poor countries around the world are just suckers and sheep for wanting to have the vaccine that you can walk into CVS and get right this second without waiting.

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

 

[DrHoops]

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

Why do you ask?

 

[dbmhoosier]

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

Did smallpox have a 99.8% survival rate back then? This is one of the dumbest comparisons I've heard.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

The more important question is do you think George Washington is a tyrant? If what he did was wrong then it is wrong regardless of the constitution.

 

[ButHerEmails]

For smallpox. Yes, and the vaccine they used was completely experimental...since the eventual cowpox-based vaccine wasn't invented until 1796. The crude vaccine they used in 1777 had a fatality rate of 5-10%. But George Washington, the father of our country, made the decision that the risk was better than not being vaxed.

How Crude Smallpox Inoculations Helped George Washington Win the War | HISTORY

As commander of the Continental Army, Washington faced dual enemies: the British and smallpox. So he made a risky call.

www.history.com

How dare President Biden provide US citizens with a free vaccine that was started under Trump and protects almost everyone from COVID death? Biden must have some sort of ulterior motive for trying to protect Americans from dying an agonizing death. The people in poor countries around the world are just suckers and sheep for wanting to have the vaccine that you can walk into CVS and get right this second without waiting.

This isn’t even a vaccine mandate regarding businesses with 100+ employees. You can also not get the vaccine and just be tested weekly. And I’m pretty sure Biden only has the authority to do this order because the emergency declaration from the previous administration is still in place. When that declaration is stopped, so does the authority for this order, if my understanding is correct. The only people who have to get the vaccine because of Biden are federal employees, but he’s kind of a high ranking official in the government. You know, because he won.

 

[cosmickid]

This isn’t even a vaccine mandate regarding businesses with 100+ employees. You can also not get the vaccine and just be tested weekly. And I’m pretty sure Biden only has the authority to do this order because the emergency declaration from the previous administration is still in place. When that declaration is stopped, so does the authority for this order, if my understanding is correct. The only people who have to get the vaccine because of Biden are federal employees, but he’s kind of a high ranking official in the government. You know, because he won.

The testing alternative seems like a stroke of genius and really exposes the hypocrisy from deniers on this issue...

The "deniers" should WELCOME the opportunity to be tested WEEKLY, because TIMELY testing is the MAIN ESSENTIAL for any of the various "home remedies" or even medical advancements in the areas of treatment to work...

Trump, Abbott, and any of the myriad of people who benefited from medical treatments ALL had the benefit of timely testing. If you want to try horse dewormer or even medically prescribed Ivermectin, the KEY is to get started ASAP from the time you test positive or are exposed.

Waiting until you experience "symptoms" and then refusing to go for medical treatment but relying on home remedies is a recipe for disaster. Just ask any of the deniers who died in the past month after opting for home remedies, Zinc, Vitamin A and D, and in many cases Ivermectin prior to actually going to a hospital to be tested/treated...By allowing for weekly testing and paid time off for vaxes and or testing, Biden basically exposes the hypocrisy of the "anti" crowd and isolates them from the majority of us...

 

[cosmickid]

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

What part of the Constitution do you feel Biden's order violates? You might want to review the folks offering this "opinion" and see how qualified their opinion might be...Esp with offering the testing alternative...

 

[IU_Hickory]

I think the issue is they don't care if they are hypocrites. They will just disagree on the facts or cry fake news and push on or they will move on to the next propaganda item.

 

[IUINSB]

For smallpox. Yes, and the vaccine they used was completely experimental...since the eventual cowpox-based vaccine wasn't invented until 1796. The crude vaccine they used in 1777 had a fatality rate of 5-10%. But George Washington, the father of our country, made the decision that the risk was better than not being vaxed.

How Crude Smallpox Inoculations Helped George Washington Win the War | HISTORY

As commander of the Continental Army, Washington faced dual enemies: the British and smallpox. So he made a risky call.

www.history.com

How dare President Biden provide US citizens with a free vaccine that was started under Trump and protects almost everyone from COVID death? Biden must have some sort of ulterior motive for trying to protect Americans from dying an agonizing death. The people in poor countries around the world are just suckers and sheep for wanting to have the vaccine that you can walk into CVS and get right this second without waiting.

Must have been a deep state plant.

The only people who have to get the vaccine because of Biden are federal employees, but he’s kind of a high ranking official in the government. You know, because he won.

Are you sure? Have results of the unbiased Arizona audit been released?
Won't know for sure until then.

 

[DANC]

Why do you ask?

Good God, you're so stupid you can't figure it out.

You do realize the military has it's own chain of command, right? Or do you need that explained to you, too?

 

[DANC]

Did smallpox have a 99.8% survival rate back then? This is one of the dumbest comparisons I've heard.

The leftists on here just mouth what they've heard on their 'news' sources.

They never stop to think if it makes sense or not. Even if they did, they wouldn't be smart enough to evaluate the stupidity of it.

 

[DANC]

The more important question is do you think George Washington is a tyrant? If what he did was wrong then it is wrong regardless of the constitution.

You've never been in the military, otherwise you'd know how stupid you sound.

When a commanding officer gives an order, you comply. You don't sit around and debate the merits.

No wonder we lost in Afghanistan.

 

[DANC]

What part of the Constitution do you feel Biden's order violates? You might want to review the folks offering this "opinion" and see how qualified their opinion might be...Esp with offering the testing alternative...

Have you ever read the Constitution? The President isn't a king.

Read it, have someone explain it, and get back to me.

 

[ButHerEmails]

Must have been a deep state plant.


Are you sure? Have results of the unbiased Arizona audit been released?
Won't know for sure until then.

Yeah, the fraudit has been going on for so long, I forgot about it.

 

[cosmickid]

Have you ever read the Constitution? The President isn't a king.

Read it, have someone explain it, and get back to me.

Nice evasion of the question. Many people felt that some of the measures enacted by Trump didn't pass Constitutional muster, but they still had to be ruled on within a judicial context before they could be defined as "Constitutional" or not...

Vagaries such as the "President is not a King" doesn't really say anything regarding Constitutionality. Obviously, as head of the Executive Branch Biden can issue mandates regarding Federal Employment, which is not a Constitutional right in any sense. SCOTUS has upheld vaccine mandates in the past, and even in the IU case, the Conservative elements of SCOTUS declined to intervene against a University mandating for the greater good...

I realize you're not a lawyer, but you brought up the Constitution so I was curious as to what specific argument you'd make? I'm not even sure that providing an alternative option allows the order to rise to the level of "mandate". I just don't honestly know if a choice constitutes an actual "mandate"...

I don't think I'd feel very secure in my status as an anti-vaxer if the best someone could come up with to defend that position is "it's Unconstitutional". You can't just claim something is "unconstitutional", you have to attempt to prove it. And then provide a pervasive enough argument that a Judge or two will agree with you.

It seems to me (as an admitted layman) that the initial starting point on that journey would be to define what provision (s) are being violated. Libertarians seem to only want to apply the Constitutional principles that refer to "individual rights" and pretend nothing else exists... Just doesn't work that way...

 

[DANC]

Nice evasion of the question. Many people felt that some of the measures enacted by Trump didn't pass Constitutional muster, but they still had to be ruled on within a judicial context before they could be defined as "Constitutional" or not...

Vagaries such as the "President is not a King" doesn't really say anything regarding Constitutionality. Obviously, as head of the Executive Branch Biden can issue mandates regarding Federal Employment, which is not a Constitutional right in any sense. SCOTUS has upheld vaccine mandates in the past, and even in the IU case, the Conservative elements of SCOTUS declined to intervene against a University mandating for the greater good...

I realize you're not a lawyer, but you brought up the Constitution so I was curious as to what specific argument you'd make? I'm not even sure that providing an alternative option allows the order to rise to the level of "mandate". I just don't honestly know if a choice constitutes an actual "mandate"...

I don't think I'd feel very secure in my status as an anti-vaxer if the best someone could come up with to defend that position is "it's Unconstitutional". You can't just claim something is "unconstitutional", you have to attempt to prove it. And then provide a pervasive enough argument that a Judge or two will agree with you.

It seems to me (as an admitted layman) that the initial starting point on that journey would be to define what provision (s) are being violated. Libertarians seem to only want to apply the Constitutional principles that refer to "individual rights" and pretend nothing else exists... Just doesn't work that way...

Not an evasion. You just don't understand the answer.

 

[ulrey]

Did smallpox have a 99.8% survival rate back then? This is one of the dumbest comparisons I've heard.

Comparing smallpox to covid is ****ing hilarious but he's a Doctor..

 

[cosmickid]

Not an evasion. You just don't understand the answer.

Oh, I understand the "answer" all right. You don't know what to say.

You're either unwilling or may be unable to formulate an analysis based on historical precedent. There's a reason Biden welcomed the challenge from GOP Governors- they ALL have vaccine mandates in their own states. And some of them were enacted OUTSIDE of a dangerous pandemic or emergency framework. And ALL have been upheld for over a century...

And many of those vaccine mandates were upheld by SCOTUS's even more conservative than what currently sits. Barrett didn't even bring the IU case before the full court and gave a speech a few days ago maintaining that the Court is not full of partisan hacks. If you think this SCOTUS is going to declare a mandate for a vaccine that is saving lives in the middle of a pandemic unconstitutional, I think you're in for a very rude awakening.

I don't consider Ari Melber a "Constitutional scholar", but this is very measured and extremely well researched. The only possible reason for overthrowing precedent and ruling the vaccine mandate "unconstitutional" is the difference between state and Federal applications of the power to mandate. Melber notes that, but (IMHO) makes a pretty solid case that he doesn't see this particular court being willing to go to that length when it comes to life-saving medical measures. I think he's right...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh, I understand the "answer" all right. You don't know what to say.

You're either unwilling or may be unable to formulate an analysis based on historical precedent. There's a reason Biden welcomed the challenge from GOP Governors- they ALL have vaccine mandates in their own states. And some of them were enacted OUTSIDE of a dangerous pandemic or emergency framework. And ALL have been upheld for over a century...

And many of those vaccine mandates were upheld by SCOTUS's even more conservative than what currently sits. Barrett didn't even bring the IU case before the full court and gave a speech a few days ago maintaining that the Court is not full of partisan hacks. If you think this SCOTUS is going to declare a mandate for a vaccine that is saving lives in the middle of a pandemic unconstitutional, I think you're in for a very rude awakening.

I don't consider Ari Melber a "Constitutional scholar", but this is very measured and extremely well researched. The only possible reason for overthrowing precedent and ruling the vaccine mandate "unconstitutional" is the difference between state and Federal applications of the power to mandate. Melber notes that, but (IMHO) makes a pretty solid case that he doesn't see this particular court being willing to go to that length when it comes to life-saving medical measures. I think he's right...

View embedded media

The federal/state divide is legally important, but probably not determinative in this case. While the feds don't have the general police power the states have, it's long established that both the states and the feds have the authority to act in an emergency capacity.

The real issue here isn't that the order itself is unconstitutional, but that the law it (or rather, the questionable part of it) depends on may be unconstitutional as applied in this instance, because it violates the nondelegation doctrine. In other words, it may turn out that the vaccine mandate itself isn't unconstitutional, even on a federal level, but that it may be up to Congress, not the President, to enact it.

However, I think SCOTUS would be very wary of setting such a precedent. As I mentioned to someone else a few pages ago, a law hasn't been overturned on the nondelegation doctrine since 1935. Since then, they've had a few times to examine the issue, and have generally erred on the side of allowing Congress to decide when and in what manner to grant rulemaking authority to agencies.

 

[DANC]

The federal/state divide is legally important, but probably not determinative in this case. While the feds don't have the general police power the states have, it's long established that both the states and the feds have the authority to act in an emergency capacity.

The real issue here isn't that the order itself is unconstitutional, but that the law it (or rather, the questionable part of it) depends on may be unconstitutional as applied in this instance, because it violates the nondelegation doctrine. In other words, it may turn out that the vaccine mandate itself isn't unconstitutional, even on a federal level, but that it may be up to Congress, not the President, to enact it.

However, I think SCOTUS would be very wary of setting such a precedent. As I mentioned to someone else a few pages ago, a law hasn't been overturned on the nondelegation doctrine since 1935. Since then, they've had a few times to examine the issue, and have generally erred on the side of allowing Congress to decide when and in what manner to grant rulemaking authority to agencies.

Where are you seeing that Congress has given any authority to Biden to issue such decrees?

 

[DANC]

Oh, I understand the "answer" all right. You don't know what to say.

You're either unwilling or may be unable to formulate an analysis based on historical precedent. There's a reason Biden welcomed the challenge from GOP Governors- they ALL have vaccine mandates in their own states. And some of them were enacted OUTSIDE of a dangerous pandemic or emergency framework. And ALL have been upheld for over a century...

And many of those vaccine mandates were upheld by SCOTUS's even more conservative than what currently sits. Barrett didn't even bring the IU case before the full court and gave a speech a few days ago maintaining that the Court is not full of partisan hacks. If you think this SCOTUS is going to declare a mandate for a vaccine that is saving lives in the middle of a pandemic unconstitutional, I think you're in for a very rude awakening.

I don't consider Ari Melber a "Constitutional scholar", but this is very measured and extremely well researched. The only possible reason for overthrowing precedent and ruling the vaccine mandate "unconstitutional" is the difference between state and Federal applications of the power to mandate. Melber notes that, but (IMHO) makes a pretty solid case that he doesn't see this particular court being willing to go to that length when it comes to life-saving medical measures. I think he's right...

View embedded media

You don't understand shit.

You think if you write more words that you're proving your point. You don't - you just prove you're a master of saying nothing.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Where are you seeing that Congress has given any authority to Biden to issue such decrees?

29 USC 655, obviously. I'm sure you knew that, right?

 

[ButHerEmails]

The federal/state divide is legally important, but probably not determinative in this case. While the feds don't have the general police power the states have, it's long established that both the states and the feds have the authority to act in an emergency capacity.

The real issue here isn't that the order itself is unconstitutional, but that the law it (or rather, the questionable part of it) depends on may be unconstitutional as applied in this instance, because it violates the nondelegation doctrine. In other words, it may turn out that the vaccine mandate itself isn't unconstitutional, even on a federal level, but that it may be up to Congress, not the President, to enact it.

However, I think SCOTUS would be very wary of setting such a precedent. As I mentioned to someone else a few pages ago, a law hasn't been overturned on the nondelegation doctrine since 1935. Since then, they've had a few times to examine the issue, and have generally erred on the side of allowing Congress to decide when and in what manner to grant rulemaking authority to agencies.

So where does the “I don’t want the vaccine, so just test me weekly” option come into play? That’s an easy out if you don’t want the shot. You don’t even have to come up with some horseshit religious reason to not get it. You don’t need a medical condition, you don’t need an allergy, you don’t need a conspiracy theory, you just need to say “nah, just test me”. Why does that part not get any coverage? Everyone is 100% focused on the shot you don’t even have to f*****g get.

 

[DANC]

29 USC 655, obviously. I'm sure you knew that, right?

Hell no, I didn't. I don't follow OSHA rules. And I'm sure you didn't either, until MSNBC told you to justify illegal actions with OSHA bullshit.

That is not Congressional action, but nice attempt at deflecting from your false contention that Congress pass any law regarding masks or vaccines.

 

[IU_Hickory]

So where does the “I don’t want the vaccine, so just test me weekly” option come into play? That’s an easy out if you don’t want the shot. You don’t even have to come up with some horseshit religious reason to not get it. You don’t need a medical condition, you don’t need an allergy, you don’t need a conspiracy theory, you just need to say “nah, just test me”. Why does that part not get any coverage? Everyone is 100% focused on the shot you don’t even have to f*****g get.

It's not about facts, it's about seeing how much dirt you can get to stick on the other side so that you can garner more votes.

 

[DANC]

It's not about facts, it's about seeing how much dirt you can get to stick on the other side so that you can garner more votes.

Oops! I think you said the thing out loud you're not supposed to admit.

You just revealed the entire Dimocrat strategy!

 

[Stuffshot]

So where does the “I don’t want the vaccine, so just test me weekly” option come into play? That’s an easy out if you don’t want the shot. You don’t even have to come up with some horseshit religious reason to not get it. You don’t need a medical condition, you don’t need an allergy, you don’t need a conspiracy theory, you just need to say “nah, just test me”. Why does that part not get any coverage? Everyone is 100% focused on the shot you don’t even have to f*****g get.

The following seems to be a decent summary of the various parts of Biden's plan (including as to your specific question) but I can't tell how much of it is already in place or can be made effective with just the flick of a pen:

Biden outlines plan to mandate Covid vaccines for millions: 'Our patience is wearing thin'

President Biden detailed a plan Thursday to raise Covid vaccination rates, pushing employers to immunize their staff and mandating shots for federal workers.

www.cnbc.com

Some of it appears to be effectuated through OSHA, but I thought OSHA required new rules to be subject to a public comment period of several weeks or more. I'm guessing there may be more than one order, each with different legal authorization.

 

[Bloom.]

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

So what you're saying is our freedoms are only defined by our laws? Which means our freedoms are subject to our laws, which means they can be altered in any number of ways by our levels of government.

So none of this garbage is about freedom. It's about stubbornness and/or misinformation.

 

[UncleMark]

Some of it appears to be effectuated through OSHA, but I thought OSHA required new rules to be subject to a public comment period of several weeks or more. I'm guessing there may be more than one order, each with different legal authorization.

I read a link posted here the other day (from Bowl, I believe) that said OSHA had the authorization to make a rule on an emergency (temporary?) basis if there was a "grave danger" in the workplace involved. Assuming that's correct, and is what the OSHA rule part of Biden's edict is based on, that will be what's challenged -- the questions of "emergency" and of "grave danger" will be put in front of the courts. I suspect a court could grant an injunction and effectively nullify the "mandate", or refuse to do so and let it remain in place as it's litigated.

It's obvious to me the mandates for Fed employees & contractors and for medical workers in areas that receive Medicare/Medicaid funding are stone cold solid.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I read a link posted here the other day (from Bowl, I believe) that said OSHA had the authorization to make a rule on an emergency (temporary?) basis if there was a "grave danger" in the workplace involved. Assuming that's correct, and is what the OSHA rule part of Biden's edict is based on, that will be what's challenged -- the questions of "emergency" and of "grave danger" will be put in front of the courts. I suspect a court could grant an injunction and effectively nullify the "mandate", or refuse to do so and let it remain in place as it's litigated.

It's obvious to me the mandates for Fed employees & contractors and for medical workers in areas that receive Medicare/Medicaid funding are stone cold solid.

While not entirely on point and with differing fact patterns (leave pay and other shit) state courts have already been taking up some of these issues as they relate to state OSHA's, "emergency" etc and Covid

 

[Stuffshot]

I read a link posted here the other day (from Bowl, I believe) that said OSHA had the authorization to make a rule on an emergency (temporary?) basis if there was a "grave danger" in the workplace involved. Assuming that's correct, and is what the OSHA rule part of Biden's edict is based on, that will be what's challenged -- the questions of "emergency" and of "grave danger" will be put in front of the courts. I suspect a court could grant an injunction and effectively nullify the "mandate", or refuse to do so and let it remain in place as it's litigated.

It's obvious to me the mandates for Fed employees & contractors and for medical workers in areas that receive Medicare/Medicaid funding are stone cold solid.

Also, the parts that apply to members of the military are based on a different set of laws other than OSHA, contracting, Medicare etc.

 

[DANC]

So what you're saying is our freedoms are only defined by our laws? Which means our freedoms are subject to our laws, which means they can be altered in any number of ways by our levels of government.

So none of this garbage is about freedom. It's about stubbornness and/or misinformation.

I'm just telling you the obvious. If you want to try to confuse the issue, have at it.

He was also the leader of the military. The military can issue orders to its members that they can't to civilians.

But go ahead and waste bandwidth on stupid comparisons.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I read a link posted here the other day (from Bowl, I believe) that said OSHA had the authorization to make a rule on an emergency (temporary?) basis if there was a "grave danger" in the workplace involved. Assuming that's correct, and is what the OSHA rule part of Biden's edict is based on, that will be what's challenged -- the questions of "emergency" and of "grave danger" will be put in front of the courts. I suspect a court could grant an injunction and effectively nullify the "mandate", or refuse to do so and let it remain in place as it's litigated.

It's obvious to me the mandates for Fed employees & contractors and for medical workers in areas that receive Medicare/Medicaid funding are stone cold solid.

That's a good point. I was focused entirely on the nondelegation aspects, but what you describe is a way that the courts might throw out the mandate without invalidating OSHA emergency provisions entirely.

 

[DrHoops]

Did smallpox have a 99.8% survival rate back then? This is one of the dumbest comparisons I've heard.

Tell that to the almost 700,000 dead Americans.

 

[DrHoops]

Remind me again - did we have a Constitution during the Revolutionary War?

Vaccine mandates are not unconstitutional and have been instituted since the dawn of our republic.

 

[DrHoops]

Did smallpox have a 99.8% survival rate back then? This is one of the dumbest comparisons I've heard.

It did after the vaccine was introduced. In fact, the smallpox vaccine eliminated smallpox from the face of the earth.

Appareny you have no regard for the almost 700,000 people killed by COVID.

 

[DrHoops]

This isn’t even a vaccine mandate regarding businesses with 100+ employees. You can also not get the vaccine and just be tested weekly. And I’m pretty sure Biden only has the authority to do this order because the emergency declaration from the previous administration is still in place. When that declaration is stopped, so does the authority for this order, if my understanding is correct. The only people who have to get the vaccine because of Biden are federal employees, but he’s kind of a high ranking official in the government. You know, because he won.

^^^This is correct.

 

[DrHoops]

Good God, you're so stupid you can't figure it out.

You do realize the military has it's own chain of command, right? Or do you need that explained to you, too?

It’s not unconstitutional, and continues to this day. Look up your state’s vaccine requirements for public schools.

 

[DrHoops]

Good God, you're so stupid you can't figure it out.

You do realize the military has it's own chain of command, right? Or do you need that explained to you, too?

Asked and answered many times.