What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Politico ignores JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS is outdated in COVID vaccine mandate fight

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
1,103
Points
200
Let me break the news to the folks at POLITICO about their story, The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates. What is really surprising is its author fails to mention the case was decided well before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right. Pointing to JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS as controlling law today is absurd since it was not tested under today’s strict scrutiny standard.

Today, when a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government act, it is presumptively unconstitutional, and in order to pass the required strict scrutiny test, (A) it must 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 has not survived the “strict scrutiny” test. Of course, one may argue that a government mandate which compels a person to allow a foreign substance to be injected into their body 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 absurd considering the Supreme Court, even in JACOBSON acknowledges the government has no power to vaccine 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.”

So, is it not time for the Supreme Court to stop ducking, take the teachers case, and apply the strict scrutiny standard to the vaccine mandate as applied to NYC’s teachers, and afford them the protection they deserve under strict scrutiny when a fundamental right hangs in the balance?

Surely there must be a way to accommodate NYC’s teachers while at the same time allegedly protecting their students.

As a former New Yorker, New York City voters may very well deserve to be flushed down the sewer for electing and reelecting the despots they do. But I do have enormous compassion when people are deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed rights . . . even nitwitted teachers who have used their job to indoctrinate their students rather than teach them the 3 Rs , and love of their country.

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
 
Last edited:

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
6,192
Reaction score
11,190
Points
2,140
Jacobson dealt with smallpox if memory serves me, which at that time had a mortality rate of ~30%.

COVID-19 has a mortality rate of <1% across the population.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
1,103
Points
200
Jacobson dealt with smallpox if memory serves me, which at that time had a mortality rate of ~30%.

COVID-19 has a mortality rate of <1% across the population.

So, what do you think of the POLITICO article?
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
23,433
Reaction score
5,501
Points
290
Let me break the news to the folks at POLITICO about their story, The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates. What is really surprising is its author fails to mention the case was decided well before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right. Pointing to JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS as controlling law today is absurd since it was not tested under today’s strict scrutiny standard.

Today, when a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government act, it is presumptively unconstitutional, and in order to pass the required strict scrutiny test, (A) it must 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 has not survived the “strict scrutiny” test. Of course, one may argue that a government mandate which compels a person to allow a foreign substance to be injected into their body 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 absurd considering the Supreme Court, even in JACOBSON acknowledges the government has no power to vaccine 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.”

So, is it not time for the Supreme Court to stop ducking, take the teachers case, and apply the strict scrutiny standard to the vaccine mandate as applied to NYC’s teachers, and afford them the protection they deserve under strict scrutiny when a fundamental right hangs in the balance?

Surely there must be a way to accommodate NYC’s teachers while at the same time allegedly protecting their students.

As a former New Yorker, New York City voters may very well deserve to be flushed down the sewer for electing and reelecting the despots they do. But I do have enormous compassion when people are deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed rights . . . even nitwitted teachers who have used their job to indoctrinate their students rather than teach them the 3 Rs , and love of their country.

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

Every state requires vaccinations for schools. The courts have backed that up. The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the one when we are talking about a pandemic. George Washington imposed a vaccine mandate on his troops. He believed that as well.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top