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

    46,203
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    bfr_341-
    Newest Member
    bfr_341-
    Joined



×
×
  • Create New...