Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate
Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.
Thanks. I hadn't really looked at it from that perspective. But still that's not mandating that people _get_ the vaccine. That's mandating that a _business_ requires customers/employees to have it (and there are always ways to get accommodations).
Overall, it's confusing to me because I see people arguing "no one should be forced to get a jab who doesn't want one!" But so far I'm not seeing instances of that occurring, so it's unclear why they're arguing that (unless it's mostly a pre-emptive, which is fine and understandable).
I'm a big fan of permanent vaccine mandate and permanent mask mandate and permanent social distancing mandate and maybe even additional permanent protective gear mandate like gloves or hair nets.
