
You can’t explain away the specific words you posted to me. They were crystal clear.
But hey, let us move on. Do you agree the protections of due process and strict scrutiny should be applied to mandated inoculations and regulations asserted to protect against the Covid outbreak?
Keep in mind due process is a guaranteed fundamental right under our judicial system, and the protection of strict scrutiny is required to be applied by our courts whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government action. Under this protection the government act, to survive the strict scrutiny test, must be:
-
(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.
In Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."
Also see Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986 in which the 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 insure 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 government 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)
And, “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
So, do you not agree that the protections of due process and strict scrutiny should be applied to the current mandated inoculations and regulations asserted to protect against the Covid outbreak?
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