In every court case, 50% of the lawyers involved….lose.
1 Like
So, you really have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. It is quite clear you are here to instigate and agitate.
JWK
I did I offered my opinions as always.
You don’t like my opinions.
Join the rest of the pack.
Allan
You asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.
Once again you show your intention is not to engage in a productive discussion.
JWK
I comment directly.
You must be thinking of another poster.
Allan
And you asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” LINK, suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.
JWK
And did you read that I meant no personal offense.
Allan
Your post explicitly indicates I do not know how to read. So tell me, is JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS not outdated since it was issued before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right?
If not, then why?
JWK
You are missing the point of the opinion. Misreading it.
That’s my opinion.
Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on the subject.
It’s okay, I will be right in the end however.
All vax mandates are constitutional.
Allan
The opinion is outdated as I pointed out. Exactly what am I allegedly “misreading” about the opinion?
JWK
vax mandates are allowed under the constitution.
You are saying that they aren’t based upon that opinion.
They are…
Allan
I stated no such thing.
What I wrote was:
A one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not “narrowly tailored” to achieve the government’s purpose __ a purpose which in this case must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning ___ and does not use the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny, e.g. see: Judge blocks Western Michigan’s vaccine mandate for athletes (religionnews.com)
JWK
There are obvious exemption for religious beliefs.
The big company that I work for and has implemented a vax mandate has clearly stated that.
Doesn’t change the fact that vax mandates are constitutional.
Allan
We are talking about government imposed mandates, which of course, if they impinge upon fundamental rights, must be judged under 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.
JWK
Amd more specifically a vax mandate which is constitutional.
None of this vague “government imposed mandates”
Let’s talk specifics.
Allan
Exactly!
As stated above, any government act which impinges upon a fundamental right, must comply with 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.
JWK
Is it not time for patriotic, freedom loving American Citizens, to take a page from the black lives matter playbook and energetically demonstrate in the streets?
and you say he’s misreading it.
the opinion explicitly states the legislature can mandate, not that it can be done by executive edict.
1 Like
And once again I disagree. It’s not a right. (Fundamental or otherwise)
And hence our disagreement on the subject.
Allan
You never stated what “is not a right”. So, you have not disagreed to anything. 
The opinion clearly states that citizens are subject to reasonable regulations regarding vax mandates.
Allan
