Quote (thesnipa @ 9 Sep 2021 12:46)
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
It is as clear as it's application has been historically controversial. but clear none the less.
States likewise have clauses to regulate intrastate commerce in various ways. as do cities. vaccine mandates, disagree with them as i do, appear legal in this context.
my point was NOT that the constitution for the federal govt gives city mayors the power to do this. but in a historical view states wrote constitutions that were ratified in line with the US constitution, and cities likewise did the same. the root is there for this action. as with many shitty things it's legal.
Yes, reread what you think you've read. Not to regulate commerce. Read it one more time before you post another nonsensical reply. NOT to regulate commerce. Read the WHOLE THING. To regulate commerce... AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES. See how easy that was?
It was decided by SCOTUS ages ago that does NOT give "the government" the right to regulate intrastate commerce. Period, full stop, done. Again, States Rights issue. The second issue regarding the quote, is that it starts with the same thing ALL of section 8 starts with: "The Congress shall have Power". It does NOT detail this power to the executive. Thus, the executive mandates are... Wait for it... Unconstitutional. The executive does not have that power. In theory, Congress has the ability to pass a law regarding people to vaccinate to cross state lines, or to go onto federal land, or to cross into and out of native lands. They have no authority regarding intrastate commerce in that regard. And the Executive has no authority.
If anything, governors and/or mayors have more authority than the Executive Branch in this regard, depending on which state, as outlined by that state's particular constitution.
Quote (thesnipa @ 9 Sep 2021 12:46)
as to science denial im not sure what ur referring to. u said "we dont know" in regards to the science of vaccines affecting your ability or lack thereof to spread covid through a breakthrough infection, to which i agreed. you said we dont know the long term effect of mrna vaccines, to which i agreed. i pointed out in a population context by which vaccines are designed we can say a lower chance to be infected results in a lower chance for spread in said population, a point which i didnt see u acknowledge let alone agree or disagree with. as i stated, you're laser focused only on yourself, while making claims about what i deny that u cant back up. and acting in a way that u dont have science to back up, while lambasting others who are vaxxed for doing the same. bit odd all around really. the unknown never makes a good crutch, especially for those not exercising caution in that unknown.
I said nothing about a "breakthrough infection". Covid is not the virus, it's the disease. The virus can enter anyone at any time. Asymptomatic spread means you "caught covid" aka the virus, but did not get the disease (respiratory infection), and are now spreading the virus (SARS-CoV2-****) to other people. Now, in all our experience through the years with the Flu and various other coronaviruses, this is not supposed to be "a thing". However, the CDC and WHO, the primary sources of information regarding Covid, have stated that Covid DOES spread via asymptomatic spread, and the vaccinated can be carriers of the virus, which still spreads asymptomatically. Does this make sense? That means, that according to the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, there is no evidence that vaccination impacts the spread. Nobody's talking about breakthrough cases here, because we aren't talking about the disease, we're talking about the virus.
So, until you can verify that the CDC and WHO are LYING, that asymptomatic spread is NOT a thing, you have no data, nor does ANYONE, that vaccines control the spread. You're simply denying science as it's been presented by the foremost authorities on the planet regarding infectious diseases.
