Hacker News Reader

Comment by invokestatic | Hacker News Reader

I think it’s actually reasonable for an agency (CMS) to decide eligibility criteria for receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid dollars. This was authority granted to the agency by Congress. Requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition to accepting Medicare seems pretty reasonable to me. Just as I would hope hospitals need to meet basic care standards to be eligible as well.

Congress often delegates their power to other agencies. It’s an important regulatory function that allows agencies to adapt to a changing world even in a gridlocked legislature.

View on HN

> Requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition to accepting Medicare seems pretty reasonable to me.

That's just a backdoor for giving more power to the federal branch. Its like 'interstate commerce' where anything that has interstate implications (pretty much everything) can be influenced by the federal government. What if an anti-abortion president elected someone to this board and told them that no health care provider that accepts medicare or medicaid can offer abortions?

I don't see mandating people to get a vaccine that they don't want as non-political bureaucratic action, especially considering its coming from the president's office. It's mandating a medical treatment. Take a step back and ask under what authority and supervision should we require a government to be mandating a medical treatment.

It's interesting you bring up both commerce clause and abortion as I'm currently taking a constitutional law class covering both issues. The commerce clause did wildly expand through the 20th century, but I just want to point out that US v Lopez substantially cut back Congress' Commerce power. It laid out clear restrictions to what and when Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Further cases like NFIB v Sebelius (Obamacare) also cut down on commerce power.

The difference I see with abortion is that the SCOTUS held in Roe v Wade that women have an affirmative right to an abortion under substantive due process of the 14th amendment. If the government coerced healthcare providers to stop providing abortions, this would be a direct infringement on a right protected by the constitution. Conversely, there is no constitutional right to /not/ get a vaccine. Of course, the demographics of the court has changed, so it's very possible the SC will rule that not getting vaccinated is also a constitutional right conferred by substantive due process.

Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of US v Lopez. The most egregious use I found of the commerce clause was Wickard v Filburn. It was a depression era ruling that said the federal government had the right to prevent a farmer on growing food on his own land to feed his livestock in opposition to a law meant to 'stabilize wheat prices' by having farmers not grow food. Ever since then I was no a fan of commerce clause. Would something like this be possible today or did US v Lopez make this impossible?

> Conversely, there is no constitutional right to /not/ get a vaccine

Doesn't it need to be framed as the government having the right to apply a medical treatment to me against my will?

I have a constitutional right to bare arms but presumably the federal government can decry that I do not have the right in certain places. Or is that not an affirmative right.

[EDIT] It appears that is what US v Lopez is about (federal restriction of guns near schools)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Lopez overturned Filburn for the most part.

> Doesn't it need to be framed as the government having the right to apply a medical treatment to me against my will?

This will be tested in litigation in cases like OP, but remember, these vaccine mandates are NOT the government forcing you to accept medical treatment. These mandates have been coercing private employers to require vaccination as a condition of employment. This indirection muddies the water and I can't speculate as to what the courts will ultimately decide on.

> Of course, the demographics of the court has changed.

Thats a problem when the demographics of a ruling body affect rights protected by the Constitution.

Wisely the Constitution also provides remedy for when that gets too out of hand: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think one area the Constitution missed the boat is that when a politician or someone in delegated power makes a law or rule that infringes on someone’s freedom that person should be charged and punished for treason. I would think that you would see so many fewer laws a much stronger and law abiding Country.

Are there any laws that don't infringe on someone's freedoms in some manner? Speeding, theft, discrimination, environmental protections, that's all infringing on one party's freedoms for the protection of themselves or others. That's basically what a law does, it restricts some form of freedom in an effort to provide some form of safety or equity.

There are plenty of laws that affect someone’s freedom as you pointed out. I’m talking about Constitutional rights such as free speech or the right to bear arms.

If you don’t agree with those provisions there is a method to change them and too often short cuts are made that are only corrected after the fact in the courts. Take for instance Biden's vaccine mandate. He knew that was unlawful yet he knowingly did it anyhow. There should be a personal consequence to that beyond not being re-elected.

Ah, ok, those aren't freedoms, those are right. You started talking about rights and then started saying freedom, so I was confused. Especially when you talked about having fewer laws because of it.

And I don't believe if the precedent is set regarding freedom from vaccinations being a fundamental right. Won't that have to be decided by the higher level courts? I don't think we're at that stage of treason yet, are we? After all, there will be appeals, and I don't know if a district judge should have the power to charge and punish POTUS.

Perhaps it should be specific to certain specific infringements.

The vaccine is mandated as a condition for employment. Is it different from universities requiring vaccines for their students (Indiana University already won a legal challenge -- https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/08/barrett-leaves-indiana-un...) or military personnel having to get a battery of shots when they enlist? All those requirements should survive or fall together.

Mandated not by their employer, but by the federal government's executive branch is the question at hand.

Public schools in many (most? all?) municipalities require kids be vaccinated against several things before being allowed to attend school. This has been the case since well before I was born. This is a government setting the requirement. Now, perhaps it is not legal for the federal government to set this sort of requirement. But maybe it is.

Which is state-mandated, not federal, and done by passed law, not by executive order IIUC. That's still a huge difference.

Commerce clause is a valid reason for federal government to make rules. Imagine each state having their own EPA with their own rules and regulations. Or each state had their own FAA. Or OSHA. It would kill interstate commerce because it would be too costly for businesses to operate at the national level.

Regarding the EPA, I can imagine it not existing. In fact, EPA did not exist when some here were children. https://www.epa.gov/history

The pollution solution is defending property rights. In the short term, the USA pollution solution is to offshore manufacturing pollution to other countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com