No Jacobson vs Mass decision said this:
Justice
John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members
the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be
enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
Furthermore,
the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public".
During the time in question Mass levied a fine and required people carry proof of vaccination with them. That doesn’t mean that’s all the farther a state is permitted to go (as stated above) but also because it’s generally understood states have broad authority over public health in their state under the 10th Amendment.
The other thing to consider is why people are losing their job. Some are losing it because a private entity is enforcing a policy under the idea of protecting their employees and the people they service from reasonable harm (typically legal / must follow local, state, and federal laws)(DOJ ruled their is no federal law the prohibits this type of action:
LINK). Others are losing it because they work for entities that are regulated by the states or municipalities who have themselves passed down requirements / mandates.
Examples would be the Texas nurses who lost their case when they sued a hospital (private entity:
LINK) that required the jabs and the Maine health care workers / New York health care workers and teachers who all lost their cases to due to state & municipality issued regulations (SCOTUS refused to intervene in the Maine and New York cases:
LINK /
LINK /
LINK ). The courts, including the SCOTUS, went so far as to say states did not need to consider religious exemptions in their orders.
Another major group we’ve seen bring suit was college students in Indiana and here again the SCOTUS refused to intervene (
LINK).
None of the above should be confused with what Puddin is trying to do thru OSHA. The states suing Puddin are arguing it places and undue burden and that Congress didn’t delegate that level of authority to OSHA under law. Being a federal regulatory body they aren’t protected under the previous precedent set be the cases and in fact are harmed by it (not state / 10A). This is why OSHA is trying to fine businesses into submission while at the same time push them to adopt the policies as individual businesses (see above).
www.washingtonexaminer.com
100percentfedup.com
theblacksphere.net
polisticker.bigcartel.com
www.oann.com
issuesinsights.com
