Government mandated vaccination and the rule of law . . . strict scrutiny (Massachusetts, v)

[toodie]

Originally Posted by katharsis

Second the bold, except that I don't know that many people who haven't had it, but I do know some.

And considering that I personally know the vaccination status of about 15 people who are 65+, and that of those 15 people, four of them are absolutely adamant that they will never get the vaccine, I wonder what the TRUE percentage actually is. If it is any higher than 90% at most, I would be very surprised. And none of those people include those who have not taken the shots because of other health factors that would preclude them from taking it, like Colin Powell's wife.

And I would say that of those over 65 who post on City Data, I would guess that at least 10 percent are equally adamant about never getting the shots.

Also, some I know who did get the jab are saying no to any further boosters. One of my relatives suffers neurological problems now after Pfizer, and a friend has had recurring infections. Both have been hospitalized more than once.

[katharsis]

Originally Posted by toodie

Also, some I know who did get the jab are saying no to any further boosters. One of my relatives suffers neurological problems now after Pfizer, and a friend has had recurring infections. Both have been hospitalized more than once.

I know anecdotes do not take the place of hard data, but isn't it amazing how many stories like your friend's we are now hearing and reading about?

I certainly don't remember anything close to this about the flu vaccines!

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by toodie

Also, some I know who did get the jab are saying no to any further boosters. One of my relatives suffers neurological problems now after Pfizer, and a friend has had recurring infections. Both have been hospitalized more than once.

The second Pfizer almost killed me, literally. And, I'm still fighting it. Not saying what I got was from the shot just that the shot lowered my immune system to OMG. The next day high fever. Over the next week acne, sores and cuts on the bottom of my feet. Remember, it was hard to see a doctor then. It kept getting worse. I was so tired I didn't want to do anything but sleep. They treated the virus then realized I had a bacterial infection too. Weeks later same thing. Back to urgent care. This time good for a bit and still came back. Back to urgent care. Bronchitis. Another round of drugs. Came back AGAIN this time fungal infection AND ring worm. My immune system from the vaccine was so poor I even got freakin ringworm.


I'm just pulling out of the dive now. No booster for me till this is all fixed. I wish I never had to get the vax but my work said vax or no job.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by Buckeye77

Sorry, but the science is on my side. Over 460 million doses of vaccine have been safely administered in the US alone. OTOH, over 760 thousand folks in the US have died from Covid, and those are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.

Numbers don't lie.

And what does that have to do with not applying the protection of "strict scrutiny" to a government mandated vaccine mandate?

Why are so many so quick to ignore our system's fundamental legal protections, especially due process, being applied to government actions related to the COVID outbreak?

See: HAMDI V. RUMSFELD


"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. See Kennedy v. Mendoza&nbhyph;Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 164—165 (1963) (“The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit government action”); see also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile”)."


JWK

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by RICANRICAN

Biden's Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors Has Been Shot Down: (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-down-n2600260 (A nationwide injunction against President Joe Biden's Wuhan coronavirus vaccine mandate for federal contractors has been issued by a federal judge in Georgia. The reasons cited for the injunction include Biden overreaching through executive order and a lack of congressional approval. ) ( MY OP another lost slow joe~)

The Democrat Party Leadership does not support and defend abiding by the "rule of law" and will continue down the path of anarchy and authoritarianism unless stopped at the ballot box.

JWK

[johnwk1]

.
See: Judge blocks Biden vaccine mandate for federal contractors
.
December 7, 2021
.
"A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Joe Biden’s administration from enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees of federal contractors, the latest in a string of victories for Republican-led states pushing back against Biden’s pandemic policies.

U.S. District Court Judge R. Stan Baker, in Augusta, Georgia, issued a stay to bar enforcement of the mandate nationwide."


JWK

[johnwk1]

What I still have yet to figure out is why, after a couple of months into the Covid outbreak and it was established that an identifiable category within our population was vulnerable to the virus, while another group which was being infected was able to overcome the virus and be left with natural immunity, these facts were mostly ignored when the hand of government started meddled in the lives of the people under the guise of advancing the general welfare.

Additionally, it was also known early on during the outbreak that various treatments, such as the antibody treatment, were extremely effective in dealing with the virus, and yet, the hand of government mostly ignored the importance of treating those infected and instead, imposed draconian lockdowns and rules which any clear-thinking person knew would create additional harm to our country. Why?

And to this very day, political decisions are being made and enforced, mostly in Democrat controlled geographical areas that bring additional and unnecessary harm and suffering to the public at large in these areas. Why?

It is almost as if there is a concerted effort to use the Covid outbreak, to bring additional harm and suffering in identifiable political controlled locations. Why?

JWK

[johnwk1]

December 8, 2021

Judge to review New York City vaccine mandate for public sector

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York judge has scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday to consider whether to block New York City from enforcing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public-sector workers."

So, I guess we will find out tomorrow if NYC's vaccine mandate will recognize the fundamental rights of its residents and apply the protections of "strict scrutiny", which in this case would require accommodations for those having "natural immunity", e.g., Anthony Marciano, a police detective on the NYC's police force for 10 years who has natural immunity, and whose fundamental right to make his own medical decisions and choices would be needlessly and arbitrarily infringed upon by the NYC sweeping vaccine mandate.

Keep in mind, our judicial system has repeatedly confirmed whenever a government action impinges upon a fundamental right, it is presumptively unconstitutional. In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 the Court noted that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.

The bottom line is, under our constitutional system, which is designed to protect individual rights, government objectives and actions cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights, and the protection of "strict scrutiny" is there to ensure that such actions and objectives


(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,


(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,


(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.


Keep in mind the wisdom of Justice Story with regard to constitutional protections: "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

JWK

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by katharsis

Second the bold, except that I don't know that many people who haven't had it, but I do know some.

And considering that I personally know the vaccination status of about 15 people who are 65+, and that of those 15 people, four of them are absolutely adamant that they will never get the vaccine, I wonder what the TRUE percentage actually is. If it is any higher than 90% at most, I would be very surprised. And none of those people include those who have not taken the shots because of other health factors that would preclude them from taking it, like Colin Powell's wife.

And I would say that of those over 65 who post on City Data, I would guess that at least 10 percent are equally adamant about never getting the shots.

Here I am, 65, count me out on the vaccine.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by bluesjuke

Here I am, 65, count me out on the vaccine.

And to preserve your fundamental right to make you own medical decisions and choices, we need more of the following:
.



.
And with regard to abiding by the rule of law and protecting fundamental constitutional rights See Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986 in which the New York Supreme Court stated:


”In Storar, we recognized that a patient's right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor's obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient's life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient's liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.

In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to ensure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own.”


And when a person’s liberty is infringed upon by government we find:

A government-imposed act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)


Why are so many so quick to allow their fundamental rights to be trampled upon by the Democrat Party Leadership?

JWK