It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Texas Bans All Vaccine Mandates!

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2021 @ 03:30 PM
The Pentagon is bringing it on in Texas.

Pentagon Orders Texas Contractors to Mandate Vaccines for Employees, Despite Governor’s Ban
The Defense Department says the federal contractor vaccine order supersedes state laws.

The Pentagon’s position is important because thousands of employees working for all of the major defense contractors operate in Texas. The aerospace and defense industry employs more than 148,000 in the state, according to the Texas Economic Development Corporation.

Federal contractors must be vaccinated by Dec. 8 unless they receive a medical or religious exemption.

Raytheon Technologies, which last month said it would require all of its employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19, says as much on its job openings website.

“With employee health and safety as our top priority, Raytheon Technologies is taking action to address the increased risk and uncertainty COVID variants pose in the workplace,” the company states. “Effective November 15, 2021, we will require all newly hired employees in the United States to be fully vaccinated before their start date.”

Earlier this week, Boeing told its 125,000 employees that they must get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Q: Does this clause apply in States or localities that seek to prohibit compliance with any of the workplace safety protocols set forth in the Task Force Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors?

A: Yes. These requirements are promulgated pursuant to Federal law and supersede any contrary State or local law or ordinance. Additionally, nothing in the Task Force Guidance shall excuse noncompliance with any applicable State law or municipal ordinance establishing more protective workplace safety protocols than those established under the Task Force Guidance.

American Airlines and Southwest, both based in Texas, says they'll still mandate COVID-19 vaccines despite Gov. Abbott's order

Your move Gov. Abbott.

posted on Oct, 15 2021 @ 05:34 PM
What I think is the most sad part about this issue...the winner in this specific discussion will be the one that carries more punitive damage law suit wise....which if the discussion gets to this point, uh, it doesn't really sound like "emergency" measures for public health.

I mean, if your trying to figure out who pays damages x-years down the road it kind of squashes any argument about this still being an "emergency".....right?

posted on Oct, 15 2021 @ 05:43 PM
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I say discussion because nothing will ultimately come of this in either direction. Its theater. Texas is an at will state, they can fire you for anything anyway...this is just Biden and Abbot hitting some low hanging fruit for press time, in 6 moths this will be forgotten quicker than you can say "George Floyd".

posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 02:41 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TzarChasm

Constitutional Law:
    Constitutional Law is a special branch of legal challenge that carries no fines or imprisonment. It concerns itself with the legality of laws passed and who holds jurisdiction over a specific issue. If the airlines or the DoJ were to bring a lawsuit against Texas for enforcing Abbot's EO, it would be handled as Constitutional Law. Most Federal courts deal in Constitutional Law; the Supreme Court deals exclusively in Constitutional Law. Such a case requires specialized attorneys to bring and argue the case, and unlike in other types of law where the judge[s] simply oversee the trial, judges in a Constitutional Law case can (and often do) ask direct questions of the parties involved.

    Violation of the judgement rendered under Constitutional Law becomes a Criminal Law matter, enforceable by whichever legal system has jurisdiction. That is, if the court rules in favor of Biden's EO, the DoF will have jurisdiction to enforce the decision on Texas; if the court rules in favor of Texas, Texas will have jurisdiction over enforcing the decision.
Hopefully that clears up some misunderstandings.

Well a lot of people file a constitutional case in the wrong court. Many people try to file constitutional cases at their county or state Superior courts. Those judges can only rule on each state's individual constitutions and technically can't make a ruling on the federal constitution. Then the Appeals go to the lower courts or State Supreme courts. Once again state courts generally can only rule on an individual state's constitution.

Finding attorneys that practice constitutional law is difficult. Many inexperienced attorneys offer to file, but don't know what they are doing and file in the wrong lower courts.

A real constitutional attorney will know that the first move is to file an INJUNCTION in a Federal Court. The federal judge grants temporary injunction to allow time for preparation of case. A temporary injunction prevents enforcement of a law or order or mandate until a case can be heard. Once the case is heard, the federal judge can either rule to make the injunction permanent or to lift the injunction.

Then starts the Appeals process if either party is dissastified. Appeals go to the District Circuit Courts which are assigned by region. The Circuit Courts have 3 judges that rule on Injunctions.

If either party is disatisfied by the ruling of a Circuit Court, then the case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling.

posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 03:39 AM
a reply to: MapMistress

There are many different ways to get a Federal Injunction against Biden's Vaccine Mandate. Some are being tried in the courts and others I haven't seen filed just yet. The more numerous different angles in which Injunctions get granted, the weaker the mandate becomes.

Here's some different ways to get a Federal Injunction against Biden's mandate.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Biden's mandate is unconstitutional because it violates Freedom of Religion. Different angles: People might be religiously opposed to the use of aborted tissue and cells used to make vaccines. People might have the religious belief to refuse modern medicine (Christian Scientists, Amish, Mennonites, other individual Christian beliefs). People might object to animal testing or animal cells if Vegan.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A federal injunction can be granted on the premise of the right for people to be secure in their persons a.k.a. bodily autonomy. Going a little further one could say that Biden's mandate is a seizure of citizens bodies for medical experimentation. Plus he is requiring papers to prove vaccination. If someone does not have papers to prove vaccination, then by Biden's mandate, their job is seized or their federal contracts are seized.



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Haven't seen anyone use this one yet, but it could be used to get a federal injunction. Biden's vaccine mandate disparages rights of those with natural immunity. And those with natural immunity are being denied entry into restaurants, stores, to buy food and necessities.

So for any ruling in a federal court that tries to uphold the 1905 vaccine ruling, those cases can be appealed on these grounds.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Biden's vaccine mandate can be placed under injunction because of a matter of States' rights v. Presidential power of the Executive Branch. Some states already arguing.

States have rights over their own schools. Not the Executive Branch of the government.

Fact is the Constitution has never granted the Executive Branch rights nor jurisdiction over the bodies of every U.S. Citizen. That is simply not a granted power of the Constitution to the Executive Branch.

AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A federal injunction can be granted on this by arguing several different ways. Biden's mandate requires states to deny equal protection of the law against those with natural immunity to Covid. They treat the naturally immune different.

Those refuse the vaccine are not treated with equal protection. Those vaccinated must only show a card proving vaccination. Those unvaxxed are subjugated to constant Covid testing. When the vaccinated can still catch and spread Covid but no testing is required of them. Equal Protection under the law means BOTH the vaccinated and the unvaccinated must be required to weekly testing OR neither group can be tested weekly. What is requested of one group must be required of the other under equal protection clause.

Specifically states can automatically refuse to enforce Biden's vaccine mandate under this amendment. The Amendment blantantly says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

So Biden's mandate literally refuses equal protection under the law to those with natural immunity. In this aspect, the 1905 smallpox ruling becomes somewhat moot. Even in the 1905 case, if someone recovered from smallpox in a hospital, they were NOT injected with cowpox afterward because their natural immunity was recognized.

Biden's crew refuses to acknowledge natural immunity. Quite literally the mandate abridges the immunities of U.S. Citizens as the Biden administration refuses to acknowledge natural immunity and hospitals aren't really offering natural immunity cards to those who have recovered. And those who recovered from Covid at home are not offered a proper immunity test. And those who have antibody tests are being ignored. Even still many with long term immunity who test negative for antibodies are not offered memory t-cell tests to show long term immunity.

There are so many angles on this Amendment to get multiple federal injunctions on Biden's mandate.

posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 11:44 AM
a reply to: MapMistress

Good synopsis. I touched on several of those, but you brought up a few I hadn't considered.

It seems most of those arguing that Biden's mandate is law are a bit misinformed about how the law actually works; that was why I put up the synopsis of the different branches of law. Your synopsis of the various arguments adds to that. Hopefully some people will recognize their need for more information and study up on what we have presented.


top topics
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in