The Leader of the Free World, the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, the President of the United States has mandated that for the health and safety of all, Federal Employees, and Federal Contractors must take one of the available COVID-19 vaccines. OSHA is preparing new requirements for each employee of a company that has a hundred or more people on payroll to be vaccinated. U.S. citizens are being asked to provide proof of either a Religious objection or Medical reason justifying their unvaccinated status, or proof of vaccination. Failure to furnish such proof could be grounds for termination. What is the foundation for such a requirement?

The excuse given is safety and wellness of the population at large, but that excuse is as vague and reliable as a fog bank. At one time, the vaccine was only made available to the most vulnerable of our population, for fear of the demand outstripping the supply. When the demand dropped off, those that had reason to fear the consequences of contracting COVID took advantage of the opportunity to receive the vaccine of their choice. Now, we have arrived at the point where vaccines are being approved for minors and mandated for adults. Whatever good has happened through the introduction of the vaccine that has occurred up until the moment of the mandate cannot be attributed to it. Now, whatever good or evil that arises from forcing people to furnish proof of medical procedures can be laid at the mandate's feet.

Is this the natural progression of things, that whatever is deemed good will eventually become mandatory?
Why did the voluntary phase end? Perhaps because the desired arbitrary number of people did not take the vaccine. This could be the case because the evidence of benefits of vaccination were not impressive enough, perhaps because the vaccine advocates were not persuasive enough, or perhaps because after consulting with Family Doctors and Medical Professionals people decided for themselves that vaccines were not in their best interest. Regardless, the mandate is an admission of a failure of some kind to argue and make the case that everyday Americans should inject themselves with one of the currently available vaccines. Perhaps the failures of the advocates and their argument should not be assumed to be failures of the vaccine or of the people.

The mechanism of the current mandates rest within executive orders and beurocratic rulings. The President, among other things is the head of the military, of the Diplomatic Corps, of the Federal Justice System. As such, the executive branch can set the requirements of employment for military service members, ambassadors, or members of Federal Law Enforcement, from the ATF to the U.S. Marshals. If the arguments for the vaccine failed, whether a lack of hard data or good arguments, mandates might be the only possible way to get the remainder of the population that can be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Yet, just because the mandate is the only remaining path towards the desired goal justifies neither the mandate nor the goal. Does a desired goal that cannot be reached through gentle persuasion and well weighed facts and reason give the President the power to mandate medical procedures?

The end goal of getting the entire population of the United States vaccinated seems to be to protect the entire populace. If that is the case, and the entire population of the United States were at risk, it would seem the Legislature a better place to argue the merits of such requirements, and lay bare the benefits and consequences suffered by the various states. The main justification for Executive Action is an emergency requiring swift action, to avoid the delays of the Legislative Branch. Considering how wayward our latest Congress has shown itself to be, that might be justification should we not be so far removed from January 21st, 2020, when the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed within the United States. If Congress cannot discuss such things, either it is burdened with much more important problems or it does not think it have the power to enact the same requirements at the Federal Level that State legislatures have enacted for their States. Even so, if the Executive is obliged to act, any Executive Order or Action has to extend from powers already bestowed upon the Executive to enforce signed law.

The justification set forward by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force would seem to be the health and safety of all employees working on or for a Federal Contract, requiring even those that fully remote from home be vaccinated. It's hard to argue that a Federal Task Force knows better what medical procedures would be most advisable and beneficial to each and every employee. It would be much easier to argue that the average employee, not each and every employee, would benefit from vaccination. If so, that would still leave a percentage of the workforce that would benefit none at all, if not suffer more harm than good. It is unclear how much good or harm, but we can assume the health and safety of the many outweighs the harm to the few, until new evidence gives us reason to think otherwise.

Assuming that, by what right does the President or any department of the executive branch make such requirements of employment in either the private or public sector? The only legitimate rights or powers of the government would have to be derived from the people. The right to keep and bear arms, the right to self defense and the right to life are ascribed to the individual, but also serve as the foundation of the Military and Federal Law Enforcement. The right of association or to refuse association seems to be the basis of shutting down immigration and foreign travel, especially during a Pandemic. What right does an individual have regarding Medical Procedures? Setting aside Civil Rights and non-discrimination around medical procedures, by what right does the Government or any employer require such procedures of those that do not consent? Does any person have a right to a vaccine, let alone have a right to demand another person become vaccinated?

Perhaps if someone goes to a pharmacy, signs all the appropriate papers and pays the required cost, I could agree that person has a right to what has been purchased. Assuming the vaccine has been invented, the materials gathered and measured for consumption, all appropriate regulations followed, an agreement reached and payments made, no adult should be denied any sought medical care. If the vaccine has been paid by the taxes of all citizens, then all citizens are entitled to it. Though I would think that consulting a medical professional, and possibly getting a second opinion would be the most advisable, whoever wants it should be able to get the vaccine from whomever sells it.

There is one scenario where I would agree a person has the right to vaccinate another against their will; in the case of a child. In that case, the child is not considered to be old enough or experienced enough to be able to make sound medical decisions for themselves, and thus their rights are held by the parents. Upon coming of age or emancipation from their parents, a child becomes an adult and receives all the rights that come from the milestone.

So, the Government has urged everyone to be vaccinated, and views those that refuse as naught but stubborn children. When gentle persuasion failed, when little favors and small bribes failed, then came ultimatums. Whatever information or reasoning is presented can be swept aside as the prattling of a child. Any complaints or criticisms of the Government's behavior will be considered an attack on authority or science. Nothing short of obedience and compliance will be tolerated.

This would conflict with the very core of the Nation, the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence and the substance of the Constitution of the United States of America. All authority of the Government is derived from the consent of the governed, and all rights given to the Federal Government are for the sole purpose of securing these and other rights on behalf of its citizens. If the citizens were incapable of making sound medical decisions, like any baby or child, then how could they be capable of political decisions? How could the Government inherit from them not only the right to make these decisions on their behalf, but punish a failure to make the percieved 'correct' conclusion?

The only reasonable argument would be that vaccinations and medical procedures required of some citizens are necessary to secure the rights of other citizens. As this mandate has come from the executive, and only experts and not the voting citizens, have been consulted, it may be a majority of people whose rights are protected but such a requirement could also be made of the majority, to protect a minority. The only rights being protected by mandatory vaccinations would be the right to Life. Anyone arguing that people need to be vaccinated to participate in society and to retain equal Civil Rights is arguing that the government and/or private companies should be able to discriminate against citizens and deny Civil Rights based on their medical status. In return, what rights are being threatened? The right of Conscience? The right of Association? The right to Privacy? The right to Representation? It would seem the President is actively trampling upon more rights than he is preserving, if this is the true reason.

No, in the end, the Mandates are founded upon a belief that citizens of the United States that are responsible for voting into power the President every four years are not able to make sound medical decisions for themselves, are not able to discuss and debate the subject with their representatives, vote on such mandates on a State by State Basis or put forward a new Federal Law or Constitutional Amendment, and are more entitled to their life than to a myriad of rights that make Life worth Living.
About the most power trusted to the citizens is the ability to vote for one of two candidates, in order to decide what new conditions of employment may be, medical or otherwise.

This may not be the absolute worst form of representative government I've ever beheld, but this is most certainly Vaccination Without Representation. This President is actively undermining his authority for this mandate, by destroying the foundation of our Nation, the rights of the people to make informed decisions and to representative government. If we desires this country to long endure, it falls upon us to Secure These Rights