copying this to the local timeline...

A poster was criticizing COVID-19 vax policy and said, "Go back and read the founding documents of this country."

So I did. (nibble)

Yes. There it is. Right there in the old DOI:

“…He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has forced us to submit of the penetration to our flesh, the inoculant necessary to subdue the plague. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation…”

#TruthBeTold = A statement that is logically or literally true (or partly true), but seems to imply something that isn’t true or is just plain weird. (for rhetoric, logic or propaganda studies… or just for fun)
#TruthBeTold #history #DeclarationOfIndependence (#DOI) #USA #COVID19 #vax #vaccine

@Pat in early 1900s in Massachusetts people who refused too take the small pox vaccine could be fined. This was fought and went all the way up to the supreme court which rules the fine was legal and constitutional.

While I strongly disagree with this ruling, and while the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion implies this should be illegal. Sadly nothing explicit is stated and the supreme court has clearly ruled that such mandates are, sadly, legal.

I'd imagine thats far more draconian than vaccine passports, which also absolutely should be illegal, though I wouldnt argue it on explicit constitutional terms.

@se7en @freemo

The joke was referring the Declaration of Independence.

Terrance, I'm sorry I don't understand your toot.

Freemo, The Constitution was written (originally) in a way that just listed what the powers of the branches of government are -- what they can do. The assumption was that anything else beyond those enumerated powers was prohibited to the federal government. (i.e., it was left up to the states to sort out in each of their constitutions and other laws.) The Constitution doesn't give the feds the power to force people to submit to any medical procedures, so they can't.

However, when the document was sent to the states for ratification, they balked and requested an explicit and specific restrictions on fed power. This became the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment specifically says that any power not granted to the feds (or prohibited to the states) "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now the question is: what does that mean? Does the power go to the states or the people?

The states have plenary power under the US Constitution which means that any power not mentioned goes to the states, and if a state constitution doesn't say anything about, then it belongs to the people.

But there are also explicit rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which have over time been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment to restrict the states also.

Of those, "equal protection of the law", "due process of the law", "privileges and Immunities" (and "privileges or Immunities") are possibly applicable re forced vaxing. E.I. the feds can't, e.g., deny rights to people based on their vax status (but they can do things to protect others from those don't get vaxed, though.)

(Note: Due to the Slaughterhouse decisions a long time ago, the equal protection clause hasn't been the route the Supremes have taken historically.)

@Pat

While that does get the general gist of it I want to point out, the constitution, even without considering the amendments including the bill of rights, lists both the powers of the central government as well as things it can not do in quite a few places. The idea that it exclusdes limitations in its power (and that is solely done int he bill of rights) isnt correct.

But that is a minor enough detail.

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

Yes, you're probably referring to Article IV. But my toot was already long enough. :)

@Pat

It is not restricted to a single article. I can think of examples across several articles, in fact there are examples all over the constitition.

Article IV aside another is Article 10, which restricts the ability of the federal government to suspend habius corpus. In fact there is probably an example of a limitation of the governments rights in every, or at least most, articles, at least in some form.

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

There is no Article 10.

???

@Pat

Sorry Article I, Section 10

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

Yes. Section 9 and 10 has some stuff in it limiting the states.

@Pat @se7en Limiting the states AND the federal gov't, which like i said is in a lot of the Constitution. The limitation on the federal govt to not be able to suspend habeus corpus is a restriction on the federal govt as well as the states.

@freemo @se7en

>"The limitation on the federal govt to not be able to suspend habeus corpus is a restriction on the federal govt as well as the states."

Yes, but there's a loophole.

@Pat

Its still a restriction.

@se7en

@freemo @se7en

I lot of folks who bring up Lincoln's use of HC after the southern states had left the US to go form a foreign country (the Confederacy), don't understand that his use of HC was actually constitutional (he used that loophole).

@Pat

The restriction only applies when it isnt wartime. So its not really a loophole, its how it was intended to be. Its still a restriction though either way.

@se7en

@icedquinn

Right in the constitution, Article I, Section 9:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

@se7en @Pat