'i do believe being forced to give up your livlihood could be considered “unusual” punishment for exercizing your right to refuse medical treatment.
1 Like
Actually, it would be considered far worse!
Our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.
Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.
And this is where the protection of “strict scrutiny” comes into play under our system of law and is used to evaluate the government’s objective, insuring it must:
(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.
Here is the latest example where strict scrutiny was used to stop a government infringement on a fundamental right.
Appeals Court sides with Christian athletes against Western Michigan University’s COVID shot mandate
October 9, 2021
“The Court of Appeals said because the Kalamazoo-based university offered to consider medical or religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the shot mandate was not generally applicable. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the judges wrote, the policy must be held to “strict scrutiny,” meaning denial of religious exemptions must serve “interests of the highest order” and be “narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”
For those interested in reading the ruling, here is a LINK.
The court states:
“And, like the city in Fulton and the state in Sherbert, the University retains discretion to extend exemptions in whole or in part. For this reason, the policy is not generally applicable. As a result, the University must prove that its decision not to grant religious exemptions to plaintiffs survives strict scrutiny. See Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1881.”
The bottom line is, the case confirms when a vaccine mandate impinges upon a fundamental right, and that right is asserted to be infringed upon, it is viewed as being “presumptively unconstitutional” and the objective must pass the strict scrutiny test as outlined above.
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
Nope disagree. The vaccine mandates force no one to take the vax. Only to make a choice.
Vax or penalty.
Allan
So, are you disagreeing with Our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, in which it summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional?
Or, are you disagreeing with the Court in 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…”
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
Are you disagreeing that a government action, which impinges upon a fundamental right, is presumptively unconstitutional, and to overcome the presumption of its unconstitutionality, it must survive the strict scrutiny test?
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
JWK
No I am disagreeing that this issue is about rights.
It is not.
It’s about choices.
Allan
Well, once again you elude and avoid a productive discussion by posting a cryptic response, in addition to not answering a fundamental question:
Are you disagreeing with the Court in 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.
JWK
what other rights should have a penalty attached if you choose to exersize them?
2 Likes
Yes, there is not forcing.
Nobody is being forced.
It’s a choice. Vax or penalty.
Myself I choose vax.
Others in the big company will choose the penalty.
It’s their choice.
Allan
Unsure what you are talking about. There is no rights issue involved.
Vax or penalty.
No rights involved.
Citizens are given a choice in the matter.
Allan
there is absolutely a right involved. denying it won’t make it not be a right. you have a choice in exercizing all of your rights. its not mandatory that you do so.
With regard to your notion “Vax or penalty” , keep in mind when the force of government is involved in such action, and a fundamental right is impinged upon, the protection of “strict scrutiny” must be applied to the government’s action to determine its legitimacy.
Our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.
Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.
And this is where the protection of “strict scrutiny” comes into play under our system of law and is used to evaluate the government’s objective, insuring it must:
(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 you in agreement with the above? If not, please explain your disagreement.
JWK
Your above notion is not in harmony with what the Supreme Court has stated.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.
Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.
There is no right of no vax.
Allan
scotus disagrees. you have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment
Over 100 years of medical technology has provided alternatives that were not available in 1905.
Testing for antibodies was not an option back then. It is now and if those antibodies are present, they offer an alternative evidence of safety that is at least as effective as a vax.
Catch up on modern technology. Don’t be a Biden boob.
Well, once again you confirm you are not here to engage in a productive dialogue. Instead, you are here to instigate and agitate.
JWK
The Chinese Communist Party is counting on America’s Fifth Column media [MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC.], and their Yellow Journalists, to delude the American people.
You are absolutely correct. Even in the outdated Jacobson Case the court states in crystal clear language:
“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.”
Adjusted for inflation, today that would be a mere $150 fine. Of course, since that case, our judicial system has evolved and now protects fundamental rights of the people, and whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government act, and the individual asserts that right, the government action is viewed by the court as being “presumptively unconstitutional”, and to overcome that presumption, the government’s action must survive 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.
What on earth is the motivation of those who do not embrace and demand the protection of strict scrutiny to be observed and enforced?
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
It’s not about refusing medical treatment.
It’s about choices.
Vax or penalty.
Allan
no, its about refusing medical treatment.
choosing to exercize your rights is always a choice, which other rights invoke penalties whe you choose to invoke them?
1 Like
I see you are still here to instigate and agitate and refuse to engage in a dialogue.
JWK
The citizens of the United States paid little attention while their tyrannical federal government gave aid and comfort to hundreds of thousands of COVID infected foreign nationals invading their country.
