Jump to content

Vaccination Food For Thought


bullets13

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

Maybe I miss heard him or I am interpreting the video incorrectly but I hear him saying call a special session for Texas an make it illegal for mandates on Texans for gaining employment. 

If I understood it correctly, I believe Prather said that Abbott’s executive orders or mandates were not effective. He was not complaining about the Texas governor right to issue such mandates. I believe he is referring to the fact that the governor issued an executive order saying that people would not lose their job due to not being vaccinated. That was not complaining about the governor, it was saying that it was ineffective because the Biden administration, through himself, CDC, OSHA, etc., has issued mandates to the contrary of the Texas governor.

Prather wants a special legislative session for the Texas Congress to pass a law that says federal mandates are not allowed in Texas. Basically the governor mandate is not good enough, it needs a full weight of the Texas legislature.

That however contradicts Article VI of the United States Constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

Maybe I miss heard him or I am interpreting the video incorrectly but I hear him saying call a special session for Texas an make it illegal for mandates on Texans for gaining employment. 

And I am not against what he said, I just don’t think it’s legal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

That sounds good but if you read the title it seems like he is talking about mandates issued by the Texas governor. , Watching the video we see that he was talking about mandates on the United States law.

The problem is that it would be a conflict with Article VI of the United States Constitution.

He had just as well call a special session and say people living in Texas no longer have to pay federal income tax.

I understand what your saying but there’s a difference between exempting your state from a so called emergency use authorization vaccine that doesn’t work and is causing deaths and serious side effects than exempting your state from federal income tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

I understand what your saying but there’s a difference between exempting your state from a so called emergency use authorization vaccine that doesn’t work and is causing deaths and serious side effects than exempting your state from federal income tax.

I don’t think legally there is a difference. Politically there is.

I have not taken the vaccine and do not plan on it. I think that it certainly is effective to some extent and it also poses a danger to many people. I am more worried about the danger it poses to people regardless of how effective it may be.

But I don’t see where that negates federal  authority. I do think what OSHA did is unconstitutional and or doesn’t follow federal law. I just don’t think under the constitution you can separate statutory authority whether  under OSHA or income tax under Article VI.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I don’t think legally there is a difference. Politically there is.

I have not taken the vaccine and do not plan on it. I think that it certainly is effective to some extent and it also poses a danger to many people. I am more worried about the danger it poses to people regardless of how effective it may be.

But I don’t see where that negates federal  authority. I do think what OSHA did is unconstitutional and or doesn’t follow federal law. I just don’t think under the constitution you can separate statutory authority whether  under OSHA or income tax under Article VI.  

Federal laws are made to be broken. The elites do it all the time. Lol. Good Chat tvc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If States ignore the Federal law on marijuana, isn’t this similar?  But the reality is, Biden and his goons in the DOJ & FBI are all powerful.  He rules like a third world dictator.  Like the Hitler/Stalin of old.  The old saying, You can’t fight City Hall, is in affect, and like it or not, he’s got our testicles in a Vice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hagar said:

If States ignore the Federal law on marijuana, isn’t this similar?  But the reality is, Biden and his goons in the DOJ & FBI are all powerful.  He rules like a third world dictator.  Like the Hitler/Stalin of old.  The old saying, You can’t fight City Hall, is in affect, and like it or not, he’s got our testicles in a Vice.

No. It is not even in the same ballpark.

Both the state and federal governments independently have the right to make criminal and civil laws. The supremacy clause of the Constitution only comes into play if a federal law says basically “you will comply with this”.

Both governments have the right independently to prosecute or sue. It is called dual sovereignty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hagar said:

If States ignore the Federal law on marijuana, isn’t this similar?  But the reality is, Biden and his goons in the DOJ & FBI are all powerful.  He rules like a third world dictator.  Like the Hitler/Stalin of old.  The old saying, You can’t fight City Hall, is in affect, and like it or not, he’s got our testicles in a Vice.

To maybe explain it further; states do not enforce federal law, the federal government does. That is why you have federal special agents such as FBI, DEA, ATFetc., and the United States Attorney offices. The federals prosecute what they want under their law and the state prosecutes what it wants under state law. One does not generally cross into the other.

If Colorado does not want to prosecute people under Colorado state law for possession of marijuana, great. The federal government still retains the right under their law to prosecute. In most cases, as a state police officer I cannot enforce federal laws and federal agents cannot enforce state laws. An FBI agent has no authority in Texas to pull you over for speeding yet I can pull you over for a license plate light out at night and put you in jail and tow your car.

It is not because a state police officer has more authority than a federal agent  but he simply enforcing the laws of his state whereas the federal agent is enforcing the laws of the United States. That is the dual sovereignty.

So….. The federal law says that we have an income tax and you will pay it. The state police do not enforce that as it is not a state law. The federal government has the authority to enforce that laws. The state of Texas has no authority to tell its citizens, don’t pay attention to federal law.

Clear as mud?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the hidden content, please

🤦‍♂️

From the article:

The Washington State Department of Transportation denied help from one county to clean up a "freak winter storm" because it does not mandate employee vaccinations. 

"Washington State informed Kittitas County they could not accept this assistance due to Kittitas County not mandating the COVID-19 vaccination for County employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The United States Supreme Court just struck down the OSHA vaccine mandate.

This ruling just overturned the stay issued by the Sixth Circuit.

It stops the mandate immediately however, I believe this sends it back to the circuit court for a full hearing and ruling and not just a stay. Remember that the circuit court did not hear a full case in court, they just issued a temporary order overturning the Fifth Circuit rule to the contrary.

If the circuit court in Ohio upholds the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court will likely then grant review (certiorari) and issue a final ruling. In that case there will be a final decision that the OSHA mandate was unlawful. If the Sixth Circuit overturns The mandate at that level, it will probably end as unlawful because the Supreme Court within deny review and let the lower court order stand.

There are two ways in effect that the Supreme Court can make a ruling. One is to hear a case and then come to a decision. The other is to simply refuse to hear the case. In that situation whatever happened previously, stands. If the Supreme Court does not grant review of the lower court case ruling, it basically agrees that there is no point in hearing the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...