Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any news on the validity of the NYS "vaccine" mandate?
Yes! The U.S.S.C. once again refused to act in a vaccine mandate case but won't say why! Probably because the nitwitted lawsuits do not press the issue of fundamental rights being trampled upon by a government act, and the shyster lawyers not demanding the protection of Strict Scrutiny.
Here is a LINK to the ORDER and dissenting opinions in which Gorsuch gives a clue to the grounds which must be litigated.
Justice GORSUCH's dissenting opinion is very informative and especially with regard to the protection of “strict scrutiny” which nitwitted shyster lawyers in New York are not pressing in vaccine mandate lawsuits.
In Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion he wrote:
"But even where such overt animus is lacking, laws that impose burdens on religious exercises must still be both neutral toward religion and generally applicable or survive strict scrutiny. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993). To meet its burden under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Id., at 531–532. Applying these principles to this case, New York’s mandate falters at each step."
Strict scrutiny protection in cases where a government act infringes upon a fundamental right, the act must comply with the strict scrutiny test:
(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.
Also keep in mind a government 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)
Additionally, “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
“The San Diego Unified School District seems to believe that medical reasons, secular status, concerns about FDA approval, administrative convenience, and accommodation of adult consciences are important enough to justify allowing unvaccinated individuals to come to school,” Jeffrey Trissell, an attorney representing the Scripps Ranch student, said in a statement. “Yet a student with sincere religious beliefs is treated harshly and banned from in-person class and athletics. That discriminatory treatment triggers strict scrutiny under the free exercise clause.”
Keep in mind “strict scrutiny” protection apply in cases where a government act infringes upon a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, in which case the act must comply with the strict scrutiny test:
(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.
Also keep in mind a government 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)
Additionally, “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
Exactly. And another one of my friends suffers with hand tremors since vaccinated. What are the odds that after knowing these people for many many years they now have all these problems.
It seems that there are more and more reports of the adverse effects from the experimental covid jab as each day passes.
"The latest ruling is sure to find itself before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“A bad decision by a left-leaning panel (Bush and Obama judges) of the 6th [Circuit],” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted. “It’s un-American to force an [unconstitutional vaccination] mandate on private [business], forcing people to choose [between] unemployment [and] an irreversible [medical] procedure. I will immediately take this to SCOTUS to seek a reversal.”
There is no question the mandate infringes upon a fundamental right. And, when a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government act, 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)
And, specifically applicable to a government mandate which jeopardizes a person's job, “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
"The filing argues, among other things, that, “This case does not present the question whether vaccines or vaccine mandates are wise or desirable. Instead, it presents the narrow questions whether OSHA had authority to issue the Mandate, and whether it lawfully exercised whatever authority it had. After all, ‘our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully,’ even during a pandemic and ‘even in pursuit of desirable ends.’”
Indeed! Asserted emergencies do not allow folks in government to trample upon the rights of American Citizens!
See: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, (2004)
"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”)."
OHSA’s vaccine mandate is a blatant usurpation of power
.
I kind of remember when studying the making of our Constitution that no power was ever entertained by those who framed and helped to ratify our constitution, or was delegated to our federal government, to meddle in the internal affairs of the States or force a private business owner to compel their employees to submit to the demands of the federal government. As a matter of fact, Hamilton summarized the defined and limited powers of our federal government as follows:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ___ Federalist No. 45
Additionally, the Tenth Amendment declares:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
.
Seems crystal clear to me employees at OSHA are attempting to usurp, and exercise powers not granted by our Constitution.
Unfortunately, the American People have been asleep at the switch for generations and have ignored the stern warning of allowing our federal government to exercise powers not granted:
“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation's ruin.” ___ The Old Guard, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787.
The rule of law and OHSA’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate
.
So, where in the Constitution has our federal government been delegated a power to enter the states and compel business owners therein to force their employees to be inoculated with a foreign substance, and one they do not want injected into their body?
Seems to me that Hamilton’s summary of the constitutionally articulated division of powers between the states and those of the federal government do not allow our federal government such latitude as explained by him in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Additionally, the Tenth Amendment declares in crystal clear language:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
And this brings us to the bottom line question:
Where in the Constitution has such an invasive power ___ one which intrudes upon the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State ___ been delegated to our federal government?
"The Court announced Wednesday it will hear oral arguments challenging both Biden's vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees and for healthcare workers at facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding."
Hopefully the lawyers challenging these vaccine mandates will invoke the fundamental and guaranteed right of American citizens' liberty to make their own medical decisions and choices, and their right to due process, which in this case requires the protection of "strict scrutiny" when a government act infringes upon a fundamental right.
Additionally, hopefully these lawyers will also invoke the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government entering the states and meddling in their internal affairs.
Seems to me that Hamilton’s summary of the constitutionally articulated division of powers between the states and those of the federal government do not allow our federal government such latitude as explained by him in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
JWK
Last edited by johnwk1; 12-23-2021 at 08:18 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calif. student seeks strict scrutiny protection from S.C. in vaccine mandate case
6th Circuit Panel engages in misfeasance and malfeasance in vaccine mandate ruling
