zantax
144
I wonder how many friends and family that the Justices have could be impacted by it. Think they want to see the parents of their nieces, nephews, and grandchildren get fired over it? Especially when just about all of us will have had it by the time it makes it to them given the ferocious transmissibility of Omicron.
1 Like
Oh great, conflict of interest issues! 
zantax
146
I wouldn’t call that a conflict of interest, kind of unavoidable that they know people who will be affected by it.
That’s debatable. But is it unconstitutional as some have claimed.
That’s the question at hand.
Allan
johnwk2
148
Constitutions may be set aside in times of emergencies?
See: HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
“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
“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
There are circumstances in which martial law could be declared , so yes, sometimes. Care to address vaccine mandates existing in fifty states?
zantax
150
Go look for yourself, all or at least most of them don’t force kids to get the vaccine if they had and recovered from the target disease, plus they are children not adults and parents can always homeschool if they don’t like it.
from https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
** Acceptable evidence of immunity against measles includes at least one of the following: written documentation of adequate vaccination, laboratory evidence of immunity, laboratory confirmation of measles, or birth in the United States before 1957.
Not all states have that. They are mandates.
zantax
152
Name one. Plus, those vaccines are one and done and don’t allow transmission.
johnwk2
153
So, you disagree with HAMDI V. RUMSFELD? Are you suggesting an emergency exists to the degree that martial law may be invoked?
Just what are you saying?
California eliminated pretty much all exemptions but medical.
I’m saying I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I’m certainly not suggesting anything about martial law, that was an extreme example of where constitutional rights are indeed legally set aside during said emergency.
zantax
156
From https://admin.publichealth.lacounty.gov/wwwfiles/ph/media/media/rx-june-july2014.pdf
Medical Exemption: A temporary or
permanent medical exemption to one
or more required immunizations that
are contraindicated may be granted if
the parent submits a signed written
statement from a licensed physician.
In addition, children who have had
measles, laboratory-confirmed rubella
disease, laboratory-confirmed mumps
And before you say it changed because that is 2014, the only thing they changed about that was it has to go through CAIR-ME now
from https://www.shotsforschool.org/laws/exemptions/
- To meet the chickenpox immunization requirement for TK/K-12 admission or for advancement into 7th grade, may a school accept an immunization record that indicates a “history of chickenpox disease”?
No, this is not sufficient documentation to meet school requirements. A medical exemption may be used for a child who had chickenpox disease that was documented by a physician. Starting in 2021, new medical exemptions must be issued using CAIR-ME.
johnwk2
157
Speaking of constitutional rights, see Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) in which 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
JWK
johnwk2
159
So, if you don’t disagree, I imagine you would then agree that in the case of a government mandated inoculation, the protection of “strict scrutiny” must be applied by the courts.
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.
Are we still on the same page?
JWK
RTchoke
162
■■■■■■■■■
I know for a fact they do.
Samm
163
Only if you have free health care to compete with the free vaccine.
