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.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss a government mandated vaccine and the rule of law.
The fact is, legally speaking, any government mandated vaccine, in order to not violate personal protected rights guaranteed under our system of law, must meet a “strict scrutiny” standard so as to not violate the personal rights of those mandated to receive the vaccine.
Under our system of law the mandate must be narrowly tailored which means it must be written precisely to impose as few restrictions as possible, may not be overly broad in its application, e.g., requiring those with natural immunity to receive the vaccine, or force the vaccine upon those who may suffer an adverse reaction, and, the safety and reliability of the product in achieving the government’s stated interest must be established with some certainty.
Fortunately, here in Florida, a judge has imposed an injunction on a government covid vaccine mandate until and if the government can meet the strict scrutiny standard. The case is: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412LINK
.
Since the injunction, the local government has dropped its vaccine mandate! No surprise there as a one-size-fits-all mandate would never hold up in court under strict scrutiny, which is designed to protect our fundamental guaranteed protections, one of which is the right to privacy, another being free to refuse unwanted medical treatments.
JWK
That legal precedent can only be used in the State of Florida, because it is dependent on the Florida Constitution.
That legal precedent can only be used in the State of Florida, because it is dependent on the Florida Constitution.
I don't know of any state's constitution which is not designed to protect fundamental rights. And, which fundamental rights are infringed upon, as is the case with mandated COVID vaccine jabs, they are presumptively unconstitutional.
I don't know of any state's constitution which is not designed to protect fundamental rights. And, which fundamental rights are infringed upon, as is the case with mandated COVID vaccine jabs, they are presumptively unconstitutional.
“WMU’s vaccination requirement for student athletes is not justified by a compelling interest and is not narrowly tailored,” Maloney wrote.
This of course is in harmony with the protection afforded under "strict scrutiny" .
Any government act which impinges upon a fundamental right, 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.
JWK
Rejecting a vaccine is a "fundamental right" that demands "strict scrutiny"?
I somehow doubt it. The childhood vaccines would have been struck down long ago if this were true federally.
The case you mention is about religious exemptions, which is not the same as a blanket ban on vaccine mandates. Also, it is a temporary restraining order, which is not the same thing as a final ruling.
“The Court of Appeals said because the Kalamazoo-based university offered to consider medical or religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the shot mandate was not generally applicable. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the judges wrote, the policy must be held to “strict scrutiny,” meaning denial of religious exemptions must serve “interests of the highest order” and be “narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”
For those interested in reading the ruling, here is a LINK.
The court states:
"And, like the city in Fulton and the state in Sherbert, the University retains discretion to extend exemptions in whole or in part. For this reason, the policy is not generally applicable. As a result, the University must prove that its decision not to grant religious exemptions to plaintiffs survives strict scrutiny. See Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1881."
The bottom line is, the case confirms when a vaccine mandate impinges upon a fundamental right, and that right is asserted, the mandate must pass the strict scrutiny test and it must:
(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.
And many accept such tyranny with open arms. Let us never forget the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And:
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
JWK
Perfectly stated. Thank you for this reminder.
It's discouraging that most of the corrupted Democratic politicians, AG Merrick Garland, and brainwashed media have chosen to crush our freedoms and abandon our U.S. Constitution.
On the topic of this thread, the judge said Jacobson sets a “rational basis” scrutiny for vaccines, not strict scrutiny.
Jacobson is outdated. It was decided well before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been developed and established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right. Pointing to JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS as controlling law today with respect to the constitutionality of current one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandates, such as NYC’s mandate, is absurd, since any act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] 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)
Today, when a fundamental right is impinged upon by a government act ___ which is the case with a forced medical treatment, see Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986, and Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) ___ the act, to pass constitutional muster, must be judged under 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.
The fact remains, NYC’s vaccine mandate, which has been an ongoing topic in the news, has not survived the “strict scrutiny” test. Of course, one may argue that a government mandate which compels a teacher to be injected with a vaccine without their consent does not violate that person’s fundamental rights, and therefore, the “strict scrutiny” standard protection is not available. But that argument would be bizarre considering even in JACOBSON the Supreme Court acknowledged the government has no power to vaccinate people by force:
“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5.”
It's discouraging that most of the corrupted Democratic politicians, AG Merrick Garland, and brainwashed media have chosen to crush our freedoms and abandon our U.S. Constitution.
Our country is looking more and more like Cuba as each day passes, and our Fifth Column media and their Yellow Journalists, are embracing such a change.
On the topic of this thread, the judge said Jacobson sets a “rational basis” scrutiny for vaccines, not strict scrutiny.
The judge revealed his bias in the case by only applying the lowest standard of judicial scrutiny to her legal complaint.
From FindLaw.com: What Are The Levels of Scrutiny?
When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, both state and federal courts will commonly apply one of three levels of judicial scrutiny from the spectrum of scrutiny:
Rational Basis Review
This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to challenged laws, and it has historically required very little for a law to pass as constitutional. Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:
The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.
Courts using this test are highly deferential to the government and will often deem a law to have a rational basis as long as that law had any conceivable, rational basis -- even if the government never provided one. This test typically applies to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, or felony status.
When a person's livelihood is being threatened, it is a very serious matter--certainly serious enough to deserve the highest level of scrutiny. This judge decided not to apply the highest level of scrutiny, and did a disservice to this woman.
They are appealing.
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.
Western Michigan University must meet strict scrutiny test to force COVID vaccine on athletes
