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.
Perhaps I should have used the word 'unreasonable' or 'irrational' rather than 'ridiculous'.
The Supreme Court set precedent in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) gives states a right to require vaccinations.
In Norris v. Michigan State University, Judge Jacobsen wrote, 'The Court must apply the standard from the Supreme Court. The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent."
Essentially, the Judge applied rational basis review & found that the vaccine mandate was rational in protecting the public health & public safety.
That was for Small Pox, a HUMAN ONLY PATHOGEN.
Covid reservoirs in Humans AND ANIMALS!!!
LOGIC dictates that we CAN NOT "VACCINATE" our way out of this!
We should be concentrating on TREATMENT instead of this "vaccine" FOLLY!!!!!
To paraphrase Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1892 case of McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, 'the teachers may have a constitutional right to refuse a vaccination, but they have no constitutional right to be a teacher'.
There is no such citation in the case you referenced, nor anything with regard to a government action forcing city employees to get vaccinated. Why are you making stuff up?
And why did you completely ignore the questions I raised with regard to the rights of NYC teachers? Are you here to have a productive discussion, or not?
One of the exemptions claimed by some is religious exemptions from Christian health care workers in NYC the problems they face is their own church leaders approve of the vaccine.
"Hochul, a Catholic, has repeatedly pointed to statements by religious leaders who support vaccination: the Archdiocese of New York, for example, has told priests that granting religious exemptions would contradict Pope Francis."
There is no such citation in the case you referenced, nor anything with regard to a government action forcing city employees to get vaccinated. Why are you making stuff up?
And why did you completely ignore the questions I raised with regard to the rights of NYC teachers? Are you here to have a productive discussion, or not?
JWK
McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford (Mass.) (1892)
In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., observed:
Quote:
The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.
There are few employments for hire in which the servant does not agree to suspend his constitutional right of free speech, as well as of idleness, by the implied terms of this contract.
The servant cannot complain, as he takes the employment on the terms which are offered to him. On the same principle, the city may impose any reasonable condition upon holding offices within its control.
Justice Holmes further argued that the mayor had provided the policeman with an adequate hearing.
This is also analogous.
There is absolutely nothing analogous in what you quote to the current situation in which the fundamental right of New York City teachers to their liberty, medical privacy and autonomy, is being chilled by a government action, which makes that action "presumptively unconstitutional".
Keep in mind 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)
Also see the summation that: The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.... Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
Of course, when such rights of government employees are impinged upon by a government act, the protection of "strict scrutiny" is opened and the act, to be constitutional must pass the "strict scrutiny" test and:
(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.
Is it not time for the Supreme Court to stop ducking, take the NYC teachers’ case, and apply the strict scrutiny standard to the vaccine mandate and afford them the protection they deserve under strict scrutiny when fundamental rights are being chilled and hang in the balance?
Shouldn’t the rule of law be applied to NYC’s vaccine mandate which infringes upon a fundamental right of NYC teachers, and now police and other city workers?
Do they not deserve the protection of “strict scrutiny” which, if applied by the court, may not only accommodate NYC’s use of the vaccine in their public school setting, but also accommodate the rights of NYC’s public school teachers, e.g., the use of N95 masks by teachers: a temperature check upon entry to a school; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to provide protection while preserving the rights of NYC teachers, police officers and other city workers?
What doe all that have to do with the fact that the fully vaccinated are spreading the COVID virus and becoming a virus super spreader?
Unvaccinated are 6x more likely to test positive for covid than the vaccinated according to recent data. Cully vaccinated are far less likely to spread the disease.
Unvaccinated are 6x more likely to test positive for covid than the vaccinated according to recent data. Cully vaccinated are far less likely to spread the disease.
Cases cases cases. Covid is far from a death sentence
One of the exemptions claimed by some is religious exemptions from Christian health care workers in NYC the problems they face is their own church leaders approve of the vaccine.
"Hochul, a Catholic, has repeatedly pointed to statements by religious leaders who support vaccination: the Archdiocese of New York, for example, has told priests that granting religious exemptions would contradict Pope Francis."
LOGIC dictates that we CAN NOT "VACCINATE" our way out of this!
We should be concentrating on TREATMENT instead of this "vaccine" FOLLY!!!!!
You are absolutely correct. The COVID virus will be with us for a very, very long time.
We need to learn to live with it by treating it, and screw the endless vaccine mandate crap which is ruining our lives and destroying our businesses and communities, not to mention how it is being used by nitwits in a manner which is abusive to our nation’s children.
In the court’s Opinion and Order we find the following by Judge Ann Aiken:
"Plaintiffs contend that the vaccine mandates implicate a fundamental right to bodily integrity and privacy and that strict scrutiny should apply.
“As the Seventh Circuit recently noted, “such an argument depends on the existence of a fundamental right ingrained in the American legal tradition.”
“Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in which the Supreme Court sustained a criminal conviction for refusing to be vaccinated."
What Judge Aiken seems to intentionally ignore is, JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS was decided decades before our judicial system adopted the strict scrutiny standard to protect American citizens whenever a government action infringes upon a fundamental right.
How on earth can Judge Aiken truthfully assert the “Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)”, which is prior to our judicial system having adopted the protection of “strict scrutiny”?
The unavoidable truth is, JACOBSON is outdated and irrelevant with respect to today’s circumstances. An abundance of case law today commands that whenever a fundamental right of American citizens is infringed upon by a government act, and the right is claimed to be infringed upon, the act is to be viewed as being “presumptively unconstitutional” and to resolve the issue, the protection of strict scrutiny kicks in.
Heck, even in JACOBSON which Judge Aiken references, the court confirms: “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…”
Perhaps judge Aiken was really asserting the Plaintiffs’ medical privacy, decisions, choices’, and autonomy is not within that bundle of rights which American citizens have long held to be fundamental, and if infringed upon by a government act, do not deserve the protection of strict scrutiny? If so, she ought to have explained what our Supreme Court was saying in Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990)? “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."
And with regard to the meaning of a force with respect to a government mandated vaccination, our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.
Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.
And now, let us keep in mind the protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the act of government:
(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.
Our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, and teachers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law.
Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.
Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?
JWK
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.
Judge uses invalid case to deny Oregon employees protection against forced vaccination
