The rights laid out in the constitution have never been inviolable. Fire in a crowded theater and all that. We have different levels of scrutiny that have to be met for a law to be allowed to violate them. For things that aren't specifically enumerated it's enough that a reason exists. I.e. you can ban smoking if the reason is that it hurts you, regardless of if that's substantiated. If the right is specifically enumerated then you have to meet strict scrutiny, meaning the evidence has to hold up and the law has to be narrowly tailored to meet the need being addressed.

Requiring people to get vaccinated would probalby be fine under relaxed scrutiny since it's specific enough to meet the need, that being not to overwhelm public healthcare.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Sep 9 2021 04:23pm

Indeed. It's likely constitutional given that you're not forcing inoculation.



Can you cite the relevant case law for why you think that this is an unconstitutional order? What OSHA regulations are being violated?

Cam "fuck the constitution" bovenzi is concerned something is unconstitutional.

Infamously used an example of how people misunderstand American jurisprudence, as Holme's words in U.S. v Schenck live in the exclusive club of Taney in Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson and Holme's other great achievement for eugenics in Buck v Bell. Its like people don't realize they're quoting what is nearly universally regarded as one of the worst supreme court missteps of all time, a precedent overturned and repeatedly exorciated by future courts and Holmes himself as he grew from a troglodyte into an advocate for civil liberties. Heck, he did a 180 and abandoned his regressive position of Schenck in the same term as he joined Brandeis in later decisions.

Nothing in this post matters at all to the conversation. You are incorrect that the constitution creates cliffs that can't be crossed. Just admit you were wrong and go forward arguing that the law goes too far or something.

Schenck being smote and cast down in Brandenberg was a triumph for the inviolate freedom of speech in America, proving that the freedom to express and advocate ideas is an absolute, a cliff.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 9 2021 04:40pm

I can't threaten somebody. That's an obvious counter-example.

Dude, you are just wrong. Grow up lol

As long as we're going to quote Holmes to support our arguments for the feds mandating medical interventions, I think we can find much more relevant quotes than Schenck. For example;

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 9 2021 04:48pm

This sounds like rhetoric in favor of involuntary sterilization.

Are you in support?

That's exactly what it was;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

We're learning something today about using quotes from Oliver Wendell Holmes to support our tyrannical governments violating civil liberties, aren't we?