Thread: Latest news on NYC’s vaccine mandate

December 8, 2021

Judge to review New York City vaccine mandate for public sector

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York judge has scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday to consider whether to block New York City from enforcing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public-sector workers."

So, I guess we will find out tomorrow if NYC's vaccine mandate will recognize the fundamental rights of its residents and apply the protections of "strict scrutiny", which in this case would require accommodations for those having "natural immunity", e.g., Anthony Marciano, a police detective on the NYC's police force for 10 years who has natural immunity, and whose fundamental right to make his own medical decisions and choices would be needlessly and arbitrarily infringed upon by the NYC sweeping vaccine mandate.

Keep in mind, our judicial system has repeatedly confirmed whenever a government action impinges upon a fundamental right, it is presumptively unconstitutional. In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 the Court noted that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.

The bottom line is, under our constitutional system, which is designed to protect individual rights, government objectives and actions cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights, and the protection of "strict scrutiny" is there to ensure that such actions and objectives


(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

"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

Why are so many so quick to allow their fundamental rights to be trampled upon by the Democrat Party Leadership?

And with regard to fundamental rights and the rule of law see Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986 in which the New York Supreme Court stated:

”In Storar, we recognized that a patient's right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor's obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient's life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient's liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.

In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to ensure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own.”


And when a person’s liberty 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)

The above is why we need more of the following:
.


.

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.

.
Today, 12/13/2021, our Supreme Court denied injunctive relief to stop New York's Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers which does not contain religious exemptions. The ruling gave no reason for not giving injunctive relief nor did it remark on the protection of "strict scrutiny" in cases where fundamental rights are infringed upon by government actions.

Here is a LINK to the ruling and dissenting opinions.

With regard to New York ignoring the protection of “strict scrutiny” and imposing an authoritarian approach in dealing with the COVID outbreak, I suggest those interested in preserving our fundamental rights study Justice GORSUCH's dissenting opinion in which 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."

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 Judge Blocks NYC Vaccine Mandate for Detective Who Sued City

December 14th, 2021

"Bloomberg) – A state judge temporarily blocked New York City’s Covid vaccine requirement of municipal workers for a Police Department detective who sued the city.

In a hearing Tuesday, State Supreme Court Justice Frank Nervo granted a temporary restraining order requested by Detective Anthony Marciano, who sued Mayor Bill de Blasio on Dec. 1 on behalf of himself and others “similarly situated.”

JWK

See California Student Who Sued San Diego School District Appeals To Supreme Court To Intervene, Cites Religious Exemptions

DEC. 13th, 2021

“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

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 Attorney General Alan Wilson Files Appeal On OSHA Vaccine Mandate Ruling

December 19, 2021

"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 due process and 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”)."


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87