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.
applying strict scrutiny to covid vaccine mandates
.
I think the following video may help posters to understand the importance of applying the protections of "strict scrutiny" to a government, one-size-fits-all, covid vaccine mandate.
Good lord, I hate high humidity and heat. Why does liberty have to take a stand in such a hellish place? Why couldn't it have happened in, say, North Dakota? Or UP Michigan? Or Montana? Or northern Maine? I'd move to those places in a minute to avoid tyranny. But not Florida.
Good lord, I hate high humidity and heat. Why does liberty have to take a stand in such a hellish place? Why couldn't it have happened in, say, North Dakota? Or UP Michigan? Or Montana? Or northern Maine? I'd move to those places in a minute to avoid tyranny. But not Florida.
Hell is a lot hotter, and its coming to a town near you.
Good lord, I hate high humidity and heat. Why does liberty have to take a stand in such a hellish place? Why couldn't it have happened in, say, North Dakota? Or UP Michigan? Or Montana? Or northern Maine? I'd move to those places in a minute to avoid tyranny. But not Florida.
Oh come now. You get used to the weather conditions. Additionally there is no commie income tax in Florida, and, Florida's Gov. DeSantis is pretty freaken good, especially with respect to the COVID outbreak. Remember, he took the lead in promoting the Antibody treatment which has saved countless lives in Florida.
In any event, a one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the government's compelling purpose, and does not use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny.
As Justice Souter wrote in Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles (2002), “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.”
Oh come now. You get used to the weather conditions. Additionally there is no commie income tax in Florida, and, Florida's Gov. DeSantis is pretty freaken good, especially with respect to the COVID outbreak. Remember, he took the lead in promoting the Antibody treatment which has saved countless lives in Florida.
In any event, a one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the government's compelling purpose, and does not use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny.
As Justice Souter wrote in Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles (2002), “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.”
JWK
I'm escaping NY and heading to FL since the mandate madness has put my career on the line.
Thanks for posting the LEGAL pov of all this, and I remember you from the Hannity boards(I was Cygnus X-1 there back then).
Good lord, I hate high humidity and heat. Why does liberty have to take a stand in such a hellish place? Why couldn't it have happened in, say, North Dakota? Or UP Michigan? Or Montana? Or northern Maine? I'd move to those places in a minute to avoid tyranny. But not Florida.
Can't always be cooler State Chris.
As I often say, "Ah Massachusetts, where liberty was born and where it goes to die".
This is only applicable to State employees in Florida. Also, the city put forth no evidence at all. The case really can't be applied to any other circumstance.
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.
applying strict scrutiny to covid vaccine mandates
