Legal Insurrection has an article delving into the legality or constitutionality of the various mandates, bans, etc. that are being enacted around the country. The short version of the arguments presented is “Limited government does not mean no government.”
I will be excerpting freely from the article. You can find the entire piece below.
The Constitutional Conservative Argument For State-Level Bans On Businesses’ Vaccine Mandates
The article notes:
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.”
When it comes to outlining the limits of government power, Obama is essentially correct. The people who wrote our Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights were especially insightful when it came to government power. They understood that limits on government power were necessary to protect We The People. The framers knew that, given the chance, those in power would attempt to meddle in our God-given rights.
We have seen this again and again over the years in the ham-handed attempts to take away our right to bear arms, our right to be able to defend ourselves. Last year COVID gave those who would usurp more power for themselves another opportunity to whittle away our rights. They closed our churches and prevented the free exercise of religion under the camouflage that COVID was so dangerous that people should not be near one another at anytime. They did the same with the bars and restaurants. It was all BS. It was all about power and preventing opposition to the grabbing of that power..
The limits that the Constitution places on our government “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.”
Our constitutional republic has multiple governmental jurisdictions each of whom has specific responsibilities as defined in the Constitution. Just what is the role of the states when our federal government loses its mind? Losing one’s mind is literally true with our current President.
What recourse do We The People have when the Feds overreach? Of course, referring the current situation with vaccine mandates as overreaching is like saying that Hurricane Ida was a just a windstorm. Our rights have been trampled in the mud.
The article notes:
The federal government, under the false premise of protecting public health, is forcing companies to make Americans 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.
Again, what are the recourses available under our form of government? If governors step in to protect the people, is this governmental overreach as stated in an piece by the Houston Chronicle editorial board? What does the Constitution say about this?
Despite the Chronicle’s appeals to emotion (“lives being lost, conservative values, local control, etc.”), the author makes a strong case that Texas’ governor Abbott’s actions flow from the Constitution.
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.
The piece goes on to explore the ideas associated with being a constitutional conservative. Such people are not anti-government as some in Big Media would suggest. Such people would want government to engage in those activities granted to it by the Constitution.
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).
One can argue about where the line should be when it comes to preventing certain activities. However, Abbott and other Republican governors are not mandating that you should not get the jab. What they are doing is preserving the rights of people to make their own choices. Such choices should be the result of fully informed consent. Coercing the jab is the Josef Mengele approach to medicine. I do not think anyone is in favor of reliving the horrors of Nazism.
The author completes his analysis as follows:
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.
Amen!