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 âstrict scrutinyâ 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 todayâs 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 governmentâs 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 governmentâs stated purpose.
The fact remains, NYCâs vaccine mandate has not survived the âstrict scrutinyâ 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 personâs fundamental rights, and therefore the âstrict scrutinyâ 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:
âIf 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.â
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 NYCâs 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 NYCâs 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
âIf 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?â___ Justice Story
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 governmentâs 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 governmentâs stated purpose.
The fact remains, NYCâs vaccine mandate has not survived the âstrict scrutinyâ 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 personâs fundamental rights, and therefore the âstrict scrutinyâ 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:
âIf 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.â
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 NYCâs 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 NYCâs 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
âIf 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?â___ Justice Story
Last edited:
