Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive
The Federal government is not in the business of mandating vaccines. See below. The vaccinations referred to in Point #1 of the quoted post all refer to STATE-mandated vaccines.
"States have long had the constitutional authority to mandate vaccinations, which the Supreme Court has upheld twice, first in 1905 and then in 1922. The federal government, however, has limited power to mandate vaccines. It can only require them to prevent transmission of a dangerous infectious disease across state lines or international borders. The federal government has never sought to require nationwide vaccinations, and the courts probably would not allow it." (Scientific American, August 5, 2021)
The issue is not the efficacy of the vaccines(s) in question. The issue is Federal government overreach, which in the end will only be settled by the SCOTUS. My guess is that SCOTUS will confirm that it is a states-rights issue and that the Federal government has no business trying to mandate COVID vaccine or any other vaccine for that matter.
|
Semantics, unless you are suggesting another civil war to resettle the states vs federal authority.
And it would seem you are advocating murdering your brother if you disagree with his politics.
And last, this action was not a states rights protest, the shooter claims to have murdered his brother for trying to help people. There is NO federal mandate to be vaccinated, the closest that comes is the feds suggesting companies do it. The ONLY mandate the feds have put in place is for federal employees.
So, your reply doesn't seem to apply to this shooting, unless your point is that the president suggesting businesses require vaccinations is illegal, and this shooter was exercising his "RIGHTS" by stopping his brother for obeying a non-existent law?