Thread: Government mandated COVID vaccination and the rule of law . . . strict scrutiny

.

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-2412 LINK
.
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

"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

.


I think the following video may help some posters to understand the importance of applying the protections of "strict scrutiny" to a government, one-size-fits-all, covid vaccine mandate.
.


.

JWK


Is it not a fact President Biden is giving aid and comfort to tens of thousands of Covid infected foreigners, who are invading our southern border?

.
Just for the record, 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.”



Unfortunately, the vast majority of our fellow citizens have been brainwashed in government schools, and so much so that they do not even know when their rights are being violated. Instead of slapping down government tyrants, they seem to act as sheep and comply, even to their own destruction.

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

.
There is another victory for those who support and defend the rule of law as opposed to the rule of tyrants. More and more of these vaccine jabber, one-size-fits-all tyrants, are now being required to observe the protections afforded under “strict scrutiny”.

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.

See: Judge blocks Western Michigan’s vaccine mandate for athletes (religionnews.com)

“WMU’s vaccination requirement for student athletes is not justified by a compelling interest and is not narrowly tailored,” Maloney wrote.

JWK

“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

See New York City school teachers ask Supreme Court to block vaccine mandate | TheHill

09/30/21

"The policy initially provided teachers the ability to opt-out of the vaccine requirement by agreeing instead to undergo weekly COVID-19 screenings. That option was later withdrawn for teachers, however, even as firefighters and police officers continue to be able to opt-out of receiving jabs."

The teachers go on to argue there is no rational and non-discriminatory basis for treating teachers differently than other city workers.

The fact is, under the strict scrutiny test, which is available when a fundamental right hangs in the balance, the New York City mandate fails and the teachers should prevail in a full court hearing.


Applying "strict scrutiny" to some of today's vaccine mandates, they would fail because a one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the government's purpose ___ a purpose which must be clearly stated and be factually based ___ and does not use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny.



Justice Sonia Sotomayor should grant a temporary injunction and have a full hearing scheduled.


P.S. I just saw that Sotomayor rejected the teachers request, and did not say why, nor did she refer the matter to the full court for a vote. It appears our Supreme Court is ignoring the people's right to petition their government for a redress of grievances . . . the United States is looking more and more like Cuba, Venezuela, China, and other such governments where the people only have those rights the government assigns as a privilege, and screw the Constitution.

JWK

"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