Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Constitutional Conservative Argument For State-Level Bans On Businesses’ Vaccine Mandates

The Constitutional Conservative Argument For State-Level Bans On Businesses’ Vaccine Mandates

Limited government does not mean no government.

Back in 2001, Obama infamously noted that the United States Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties” that details “what the states can’t do to you, what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

On this point, he is essentially right.  The Constitution is designed to limit the degree to which the federal (and to a lesser degree, state) government can meddle in our lives.  The Bill of Rights is a key example of this, detailing what the government cannot do—what it is not at liberty to do—to the American people.

This is right and just.  The government should not be meddling in our God-given rights to freedom of speech and assembly, to keep and bear arms, to freely exercise our religion, and etc.

Obama was also correct in noting that the Constitution does not state what the government “must do on your behalf” beyond that detailed in the Constitution concerning the role and purview of each branch of government.   He, of course, sees this as a flaw, but it’s a feature.

Indeed, it is arguably the single factor that makes our Constitution the best ever written in terms of establishing the government of a free people.  By limiting the role of government, our Founders established that we, the people, are intended to have historically unprecedented freedom to make our decisions and to be able to live our lives free of endless and ever-growing government interference.

So what is the role of the states in all of this?  What if the federal government tramples the rights of a free people by requiring a WuFlu vaccination that some people have determined they neither want nor need?  Where is the recourse when the federal government itself steps beyond its Constitutional scope to force a private business to do its bidding?

It is through this lens that I consider the decision of Republican governors and legislatures to ban mask and/or vaccination mandates by companies in their states.  Joe “I am the Democratic Party” Biden announced a WuFlu vaccine mandate on businesses with 100 or more employees.  While this mandate has thus far not actually manifested (though the rule is expected to drop . . . at some point), the mandate on private businesses is an overreach.  It falls into the category of Obama’s “what the government must do on your behalf” and, as such, is anathema to Constitutional conservatives.

The federal government, under the false premise of protecting public health, is forcing companies to force Americans to choose between their jobs and their God-given right to self-determination.  At this point, these companies are not acting as private entities but as government agents acting not as they wish but as extensions of the federal government.

The federal government cannot mandate that every American get vaccinated, so this is the next best thing: an end-run around the Constitution.

The Houston Chronicle editorial board published a sophomoric and moronic piece claiming that governors banning federal mandates are themselves guilty of mandates.  In this twisted view, Texas governor Greg Abbott’s move to protect the American people from livelihood-destroying government overreach is itself government overreach (archive link).

The governor’s order conflicts with a soon-to-be-enacted federal regulation that will require businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure they’re either vaccinated or tested weekly. Butting up against President Joe Biden is precisely the point.

“In yet another instance of federal overreach, the Biden administration is now bullying many private entities into imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates,” Abbott wrote in the order.

Abbott’s anti-mandate mandate also conflicts with the classic conservative tradition in this state and elsewhere of the primacy of local control. Since Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton have ruled the Capitol roost, such rank hypocrisy is par for the course. Still, it’s one thing when the governor ignores local control over the use of plastic bags, cutting down trees or restricting fracking within the city limits; it’s another when thousands of lives are at stake in a global pandemic.

Well, no, there is no conflict “with the classic conservative tradition in this state and elsewhere of the primacy of local control.” Not only is the Constitution silent on the issue of “local control” of a person’s God-given rights, but the Constitution gives all authority not specifically assigned to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Abbott, as the duly-elected governor of Texas, is the exact Constitutionally-appointed person intended to step in to protect the rights of his state’s citizens. If the people choose to be vaccinated, that’s their choice. A federal government ultimatum—get this series of shots with untold numbers of “boosters” for the foreseeable future or lose your job—is the exact time that a governor not only can but must step in to stop the tyranny.

Furthermore, even companies and businesses that are imposing these vaccine mandates on their own, not under threat of the full force and power of the federal government, are depriving Americans of their liberty to make their own decisions and should therefore be constrained from doing so by the state government.

Doing so is in the very spirit of the Constitution, as a “charter of negative liberties.”  No, the federal government should not be able to coerce or force you to take a vaccine you may not need upon threat of unemployment, and no, a private business should not be able to coerce or force you to do so, either. The very idea is anti-Constitutional conservative.

Constitutional conservatives—unlike, say, libertarians—are very much pro-government, as long as it’s the republic established in our Constitution.  We recognize that there are some things that the government must do to protect the nation and her people.

That is why, as an example, Constitutional conservatives are perfectly fine with government bans on private companies engaging in the coerced or forced hysterectomies of its female employees. That is why we support minimal regulations such as those that ensure abortion mills are not literally selling baby parts for profit.  Limited government, in other words, does not mean no government.

The state government should absolutely intervene to protect the liberty of we, the people.  If a tobacco company mandated that all employees become addicted to cigarette smoking, this would be unacceptable and a good place for government intervention.  If any company mandated abortions for all female employees or that all employees submit to plastic surgery or foot-binding, we would be, justly, outraged and demand legislative action to stop it.

Companies cannot just do whatever they like, and they certainly should not be free to coerce or force their employees to take one of or a mix of the WuFlu vaccine buffet items.  Not only are the various vaccines available problematic and concerning for most age groups without high risk factors, but scientific research and findings are being deliberately ignored and/or suppressed (regarding acquired immunity, for example).

Further, and this seems to get missed rather frequently, these Republican governors or not banning the vaccine; indeed, they are urging everyone to get it.  They are merely saying that a vaccine mandate is one step too far, that threatening a person’s career and livelihood over “getting the jab” is unacceptable.

These governors are taking a stand and saying, no, the federal government cannot do this to you, nor can it compel private business to do it to you; indeed, businesses cannot ‘independently’ do this to you, they cannot strip away your rights to self-determination, they cannot bully you or coerce you to accept the injection of something you do not want (and probably don’t need) into your body in order to remain employed and able to support your family.

This Biden (and so far only pending) vaccine mandate on private businesses is a federal government one-size-fits-all “solution” to a coronavirus (reminder: the common cold is caused by a coronavirus) that is demonstrably not a one-size-affects-all virus.

As such, banning harmful and unnecessary business mandates is not only correct, but it is the responsibility and duty of elected public servants whose job it is to protect and defend our Constitution and our individual liberty.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2smartforlibs | October 22, 2021 at 9:58 am

The Feds refuse to protect the country violating Title 5 but they can force American citizens not illegals to take the government serum.

Just a little note

David French is about as much a conservative as Fuzzy Slippers is a far left radical.

For how to tell

1. He backs the most radical leftwing political movement in history

2. He loves himself some drag queen story hour and critical race theory

3.He loves himself some government crackdown on conservative activism against crt (be honest that is a much more meaningful dividing line between left and right than taxes will ever be)

4. He loves himself some mask mandates

5. He loves himself some fake insurrection fear mongering

6. He loves the national security state crackdown on conservatives

Sure maybe he is a good family man like 99% conservatives and leftists.

    CommoChief in reply to Danny. | October 22, 2021 at 12:34 pm

    French is a what I describe as a lost and wandering libertarian. He gets too close to the trees and loses sight of the forest. He conflates the don’t initiate force tenant of libertarian with a state monopoly on force. As long as the state uses it’s monopoly of force to impose their policy preferences they support it, even where it sets the conditions or creates a precedent/new standard that a political adversary could exploit for future gain.

    He and many other neocons of a libertarian bent seek to apply their preferred religious beliefs as an overlay to public policy. Instead of simply allowing their western religious philosophy to inform their general secular policy preferences they seek to demonstrate their supposedly superior virtue/ religious sincerity by imposing their beliefs on others. If you disagree your moral compass is therefore broken.

    IMO, French and those on the establishment right who take this path are no better than the woke SJW. All of them want the state to force others to adhere to their own belief systems with individual rights shunted to the side.

      We mostly agree on that man but I don’t think you could call a man who defends and supports the national security state and his for his entire adult life a libertarian. Like most he is selectively libertarian and is against government intervention unless it is for something he loves.

      I don’t think “libertarian” means what you think it means, Chief.

    henrybowman in reply to Danny. | October 22, 2021 at 1:50 pm

    Indeed. Large parts of the LW commentariat are incapable of grasping that NeverTrumper David French is considered “part of the RW commentariat” only by the LW.

States were always meant to be the primary level of government

The federal government is lost… I have believed for a while the states will have to intervene. This is how it was intended… I just read about the AG of Az filing for a nation wide injunction against this vaccine overreach. Godspeed Mark Brnovich..

If you are interested: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-temporary-restraining-order-stop-biden-vaccine-mandate

    JHogan in reply to amwick. | October 22, 2021 at 11:37 am

    Also, the AG of Nebraska has approved permitting doctors in the state to prescribe HCQ and Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid.

    More states should do this.

    More states should start defying federal government issued dictates affecting their citizens’ health decisions. More states should defy federal government medical tyranny.

      henrybowman in reply to JHogan. | October 22, 2021 at 2:09 pm

      It’s already happening. The number of Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties is just short of 2/3 of the entire country. The coming push is states forbidding CRT in their school systems.

      Paul in reply to JHogan. | October 22, 2021 at 2:31 pm

      The Nebraska AG’s order, by the way, is a great read. It provides a tremendous amount of detail of the “why” behind his decision, and has a couple hundred scientific footnotes. It’s a great document to provide to left wing shills and other morons who still spew the propaganda line about “horse de-wormer” having “no scientific evidence” that it helps treat/prevent covid.

    Danny in reply to amwick. | October 22, 2021 at 6:40 pm

    It is lost until we retake it, no despairing. In the meantime we have many state houses.

Since when are businesses allowed to make health decisions for their employees? For a virus with a 99.9% survival rate for people under 50? Since when are employees required to submit to a businesses’ regime of medical tyranny?

If businesses are allowed to do this, then, at a minimum, businesses that mandate Covid vaccines must be held liable for any side affects, including deaths, that result.

And since these businesses have decided they are in the business of making health decisions for their employees, they should be required to pay the full health insurance premiums and all health related costs (deductables, copay, coinsurance, etc) for all employees. Their employees should never have to pay a dime for anything related to their health.

That should eliminate most business involvement.

If an employee wishes to only work at businesses that issue health related mandates — like vaccines, flu shots, BMI limits, exercise requirements, blood pressure limits, etc. — they are free to find such employers and apply.

    nordic_prince in reply to JHogan. | October 22, 2021 at 12:41 pm

    Indeed – although I would add that even if the WuFlu had a survival rate of only (say) 10%, it STILL wouldn’t be within the purview of private companies to run around mandating specific health treatments. (An aside: why wouldn’t that be considered “practicing medicine without a license”?)

    If the WuFlu were as deadly as the Black Death (for example), there wouldn’t be any need for mandates and government interventions – people would act according to their self-interests. The fact that they constantly “have” to use big sticks like mask mandates, clot shot mandates, social distancing mandates, etc is proof that it’s all a global scam – especially when you take into consideration the fact that politicians, celebs, and other bigwigs party hearty on their own, sans masks, sans social distancing, and most likely sans bona fide WuFlu injections.

Analogy.

If you have ever played a video game that lasts for a while, then you notice that the owner often changes hands, the programmers change companies, and pretty quickly you get a situation where the original coders are not the coders currently employed. The new code writers never seem to be able to read the code of the original code writers and so, as the game changes its marketing/balance, the new coders always “break” something with every update.

I think our government is like that. When a social issue of particular importance came up, we didn’t tend to amend the constitution but rather use an unconstitutional fix that “breaks” other components of our governing ideas. Do we have freedom of association? Why do business licenses even exist? By what authority do the federal courts get to tell the states how to run their elections?

All of those “fixes” seem to have broken our system.

    Olinser in reply to Dathurtz. | October 22, 2021 at 1:02 pm

    That’s Activision Blizzard’s problem now. They keep royally fucking up their ‘remakes’ of classic games because everybody that made those games great is long gone, and they’ve been hiring people for SJW bullshit instead of actual talent.

    They’re literally incapable of simply graphically updating 20 year old games without completely screwing them up.

Great article. How to get DeSantis to take action on it?

    He’s taken a very strong stance against the vaccine mandate, actually. Though no state including Florida can legally challenge a rule that has yet to drop, he is doing something very very Trumpian. DeSantis is supporting as yet inchoate legislation that says all liability for vaccine-related illness, disability, and death be on the heads of any and all businesses requiring the vaccine. You want to force your employees to be vaccinated, cool, but guess who pays when that forced vaccine on otherwise healthy young adults (and soon children) results in tragedy. You do. Talk about a downer for the pro-vax mandate crowd. It’s really quite genius. 😉

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend