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.
It’s your choice to refuse.
It’s all about choices.
The vax police don’t come around to make sure everyone is vaxxed.
It’s an employees choice.
Vax or penalty.
Allan
I see you are still here to instigate and agitate and refuse to engage in a dialogue.
which other rights invoke penalties if you choose to exercize them?
we’re not talking about private employers, we’re talking about a government mandate
1 Like
How can staying my opinion be construed as instigating.
Vax or penalty.
As it was in Jacobson.
Allan
It’s not a right.
Allan
refusing medical treatment is a right according to scotus. take it up with them
