[bko]

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

[invokestatic]

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.