From the 1905 Small Pox vaccine case that was cited in the article:
[T]he liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.
Seems what is clear here is that there are some situations where a vaccine mandate is constitutional if given a good enough reason.
Except for unusual stupidity or unusual bias I can not see how this could be construed to apply to anything that might be called a vaccine. Supposing that the we had vaccine X and it killed 99% of the people one gave it to and had no health benefits. Does the fact that it is called a vaccine make it constitutional to mandate it?
Now the Jabs are not as bad as this theoretical vaccine X. Nor are they anywhere near as beneficial as the Small Pox vaccine. But the point is that the safety and the efficacy and the danger that the disease imposes etc are all factors that still must be considered in each case UNLESS you think that vaccine X mandates are constitutional.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Sorry, the case law cited does not support the conclusion that everything that might be officially labeled a “vaccine” can be made mandatory.”
Clearly at least some vaccinations can be made mandatory. Have any kids in school? Were vaccinations required? Are these unconstitutional?