Know anyone quitting over the Federal Employee vaccine mandate?

SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
In keeping with the actual point of this thread - and not getting derailed by irrelevancies - I just got an email that basically says if you're not vaccinated by November 22, you could be dismissed from federal service. My boss is hoping to get fired, so he can sue.
 
C

Calistress

Active Member
SamSpade said:
In keeping with the actual point of this thread - and not getting derailed by irrelevancies - I just got an email that basically says if you're not vaccinated by November 22, you could be dismissed from federal service. My boss is hoping to get fired, so he can sue.
Click to expand...
He better have a good lawyer, a large bankroll, or patrons to finance the suit, and many years left of his life because suing the federal government is not going to be quick or easy. But he'll have some cool stories to impress the guys at the bar.

In the meantime, he should read up on: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Calistress said:
In the meantime, he should read up on: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
Click to expand...

Jacobson is a case that involved a State, not the federal government. As such, it would be quite a stretch to assume it will have legal precedent here. We have a federal system and as such it makes much more sense to have these decisions made at smaller units of government. It therefore does make a lot of sense, even if one disagrees with the notion of a State mandate, that this case was decided the way that it was.
 
C

Calistress

Active Member
HemiHauler said:
Jacobson is a case that involved a State, not the federal government. As such, it would be quite a stretch to assume it will have legal precedent here. We have a federal system and as such it makes much more sense to have these decisions made at smaller units of government. It therefore does make a lot of sense, even if one disagrees with the notion of a State mandate, that this case was decided the way that it was.
Click to expand...
I fully understand that. I clearly bolded the sentence that contains the word states.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Calistress said:
I fully understand that. I clearly bolded the sentence that contains the word states.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it.

This can in fact be struck down without implicating the Jacobson case. I just don't think it will

I don't think any lawyer who helped to craft this would craft it in a way that would leave the government high and dry for hypotheticals in the future where mandates might be necessary to maintain the regime. I mean, if there is one things governments like it is to govern moar. I'm talking about bio-terror attacks, smallpox:TNG, etc., etc. If this were to be rejected, then it basically ties government hands to protect its own Executive Branch from extinction in these types of scenarios. Many may think that's a fine idea, wiping out the majority of the Executive Branch, but I'm just saying government isn't likely to leave that sort of legal liability open.
 
LightRoasted

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Calistress said:
In the meantime, he should read up on: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
Click to expand...
This argument will not fly as the current "vaccine" is unapproved, unlicensed and is still experimental and used only under an Emergency Use Authorization.

And since we are a representative Republic, were, We The People, are the government, if my neighbor, as part of that government, tries to force an injection into me against my will, well, I do believe that will result in a stand my ground defensive situation.
 
PeoplesElbow

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Just thought of something, since I was required to be in work because I was mission critical do they owe me hazardous duty pay for the last year?
 
Kinnakeet

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
Louise said:
WE saw this coming. Now, what are WE going to do about it? That is the question. What goes around comes around. History, absolutely, does repeat itself. This happened to the indigenous in this country back in the day. I have Shawnee blood in my veins because my ancestor, Daniel, married a Shawnee in Kansas In 1840.
I wish I lived there, now.. God bless the USA.
Click to expand...
IM IN!
 
Kinnakeet

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
NextJen said:
Received a Department wide email on Friday saying that they are implementing the presidential mandate as soon as possible (all Feds and contractors required to be vaccinated). No date given yet as to when employees will have to show proof of vaccination. If that date is before the end of the year, I'll just step out earlier than planned. Shoot, I may do that anyway.
God bless you Feds that have to stay on.
Click to expand...
Do not comply the government cannot tell you that you have to do what they say there are plenty of videos aroun with pelosi say just that and fauci too
 
O

OccamsRazor

Well-Known Member
PeoplesElbow said:
Just thought of something, since I was required to be in work because I was mission critical do they owe me hazardous duty pay for the last year?
Click to expand...
One of my neighbors is a government worker on the base. He has told me that this has been brought up several times in discussions with the higher-ups. Apparently it is just brushed off or the topic is changed so that it does not have to be addressed. I think that people who were so essential to the cause should be paid more. After all how much money are the people who "worked from home" saving on gas money, vehicle wear and tear, and in some cases child care?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top