- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
“You can’t make people take the Vaccine” - Fauci
Posted on 10/14/21 at 10:33 am
Posted on 10/14/21 at 10:33 am
5
Posted on 10/14/21 at 10:35 am to NashvilleTider
quote:That was old Fauci. New Fauci says "You can make people take the Vaccine."
“You can’t make people take the Vaccine” - Fauci
Posted on 10/14/21 at 10:35 am to NashvilleTider
Are you saying Fauci flip flopped on another issue?
Posted on 10/14/21 at 10:38 am to NashvilleTider
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Have fun reading.
Have fun reading.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 10:42 am to wayak
quote:Apparently you did not. That was not a federal case, it was a case brought by the State of Massachusetts. In 1905.
Have fun reading.
Thanks for not playing. Again.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:00 am to wayak
That particular states constitution allows for it. But those that live there have the option to leave and go to a free state. Federal government has no authority over states and cannot compel a state to mandate via the 10th.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:02 am to wayak
I'll tell you what you can do with that case. The first part starts with rolling it up real tight. . .
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:50 am to NashvilleTider
quote:
"You can’t make people take the Vaccine” - Fauci
So, instead, you make their lives as miserable as possible in an attempt to thoroughly break them and beat them into submission until they "voluntarily" take it.
frick your shots and your fascist tactics. This is banana republic, third world bullshite.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:51 am to TigerAxeOK
quote:
So, instead, you make their lives as miserable as possible in an attempt to thoroughly break them and beat them into submission until they "voluntarily" take it.
There’s another clip in that same video where he admits that doesn’t work either.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:52 am to NashvilleTider
I need a weathervane shaped like this dickhead.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:53 am to wayak
quote:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts Have fun reading.
Where do you dumb people that bow down to the feds come from?
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:53 am to Wolfhound45
I invite you to read Jacobson v. Massachusetts more closely.
Pay particular attention to the part where it says U.S. Supreme Court.
Pay particular attention to the part where it says U.S. Supreme Court.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 11:54 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Apparently you did not. That was not a federal case, it was a case brought by the State of Massachusetts. In 1905.
so, it predates Nuremburg as well as the development of 4th Amendment jurisprudence?
Posted on 10/14/21 at 12:21 pm to wayak
I don't care what that case says - I have a closet full of the 2nd amendment that overrules anyone that tries to make me take any medicine.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 12:21 pm to wayak
How you haven’t been banned yet as an obvious paid poster is beyond me
Posted on 10/14/21 at 12:44 pm to wayak
quote:
I invite you to read Jacobson v. Massachusetts more closely.
I love when people try for a “gotcha” but fail miserably. I invite you to read the case more closely. Jacobson did not simply state that any and all vaccine mandates are constitutional as you assert. The holding of Jacobson revolves around deferring to the state constitution when federal law is silent. Here are some quotes by the US Supreme Court from Jacobson which recognize these state powers…
“[T]his court … has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and ‘health laws of every description’[.]”
“The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state”
In this case, the explicit intent of Massachusetts’ constitution was to provide for the collective and common good/health of its citizens. Vaccines being one of those collective goods. As a result, these mandatory smallpox vaccines were found to be constitutional. But the issue doesn’t end there.
When a state constitution does not have one of these “health and welfare” provisions, we can look to other provisions that may be on point. Louisiana and many other states (not Massachusetts) have this thing in their constitution called the Right to Privacy. This includes the right to obtain or reject medical treatment. As a result, the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson both allows and prevents mandatory vaccinations depending on the constitution of the state in question.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 12:54 pm to wayak
Pay attention to the part where it says who brought suit.
Hint, not the federal government.
Hint, not the federal government.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 12:56 pm to wayak
quote:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
That disease had a 30% mortality rate. What's the mortality rate for COVID?
Posted on 10/14/21 at 3:07 pm to BigDawg0420
quote:
I love when people try for a “gotcha” but fail miserably. I invite you to read the case more closely. Jacobson did not simply state that any and all vaccine mandates are constitutional as you assert. The holding of Jacobson revolves around deferring to the state constitution when federal law is silent. Here are some quotes by the US Supreme Court from Jacobson which recognize these state powers… “[T]his court … has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and ‘health laws of every description’[.]” “The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state” In this case, the explicit intent of Massachusetts’ constitution was to provide for the collective and common good/health of its citizens. Vaccines being one of those collective goods. As a result, these mandatory smallpox vaccines were found to be constitutional. But the issue doesn’t end there. When a state constitution does not have one of these “health and welfare” provisions, we can look to other provisions that may be on point. Louisiana and many other states (not Massachusetts) have this thing in their constitution called the Right to Privacy. This includes the right to obtain or reject medical treatment. As a result, the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson both allows and prevents mandatory vaccinations depending on the constitution of the state in question.
The Court also goes out of its way to say that the vaccination in question shows "generations" of common usage and that it's efficacy is "common knowledge".
mRNA vaccines have historically been ineffective and this is the first 18 months of its use for COVID-19.
Posted on 10/14/21 at 4:03 pm to wayak
quote:Plessy v Ferguson
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Have fun reading. Oh, wait....
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News