Supreme Court Rules Mandatory Vaccinations Constitutional

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-us-supreme-court-has-already-ruled.html

in 1905 and then again in the 1920's, citing the 1905 case.

[FBaggins]

1. Mandatory vaccination by states... not mandates from the federal government

Jacobsen doesn't help at all with the current debate. The blogger should actually read the decision before commenting.

So roll up. your sleeves. This is not something that violates either your personal individual liberties or your religious beliefs.

Absolutely true. But also irrelevant. The federal government's powers are not defined as "anything that does not violate your individual liberties or religious beliefs"

[lees1975]

2. The Federal Constitution also defines "protection of its citizens"

as one of the government's responsibilities. The federal government is not mandating vaccines in any way that interferes with the state mandate, it is doing it for those who are under its direct supervision and jurisdiction. That's also been established by court rulings. But I don't think the point in the blog is to define the federal government's powers, its to point out that this is not a new argument and there's a lot of political inconsistency about it.

[onenote]

3. Jacobson itself rejected your position about the preamble

I'm not exactly sure where the Constitution "defines" one of the government's responsibilities as "protection of its citizens." Presumably you're referring to the preamble? If so, you have a bit of a problem in relying on Jacobson since that decision expressly states that the preamble "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

The issue of whether a federal vaccination mandate is constitutional is not decided by Jacobson, which simply held that such a mandate, if enacted by a state, was not unconstitutional because it was, as alleged, in derogation of the preamble's stated purpose of securing the blessings of liberty to the people.

If you don't think this Supreme Court is capable of distinguishing Jacobson and finding no constitutional grant of authority to the federal government to impose a vaccination mandate, you are a bit naive. Moreover, this Court might well avoid reaching the Constitutional question by concluding that Congress has not delegated such authority to OSHA.

[FBaggins]

4. You put that in quotes. What are you quoting?

The 10th Amendment doesn't mean anything if you can just say "well... we're protecting citizens" to anything you want to do.

Regardless... the OP is flat wrong. Jacobsen provides no basis at all for a federal mandate. It refers specifically to a state power (e.g., "police powers" ) that the federal government does not possess.

it is doing it for those who are under its direct supervision and jurisdiction.

There's no question that the federal government can mandate vaccines for its employees. That's not the issue here.