Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.
Profile image
Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Constitutional Attorney On SCOTUS' Lawless "Vaccine" Mandate Opinion: It "Violate[s] Every Constitutional Safeguard For Privacy, Bodily Integrity & Religious Freedom"

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.


On Friday morning, I explained on The Sons of Liberty Radio why the ruling by the supreme Court on Thursday was double-minded and did not adhere to the US Constitution. Among the items I pointed out were a violation of Article I, Section 1 and the equal protection clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. However, constitutional attorney John Whitehead posted his thoughts on the SCOTUS opinion.

Whitehead writes:

In a pair of mixed rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted the Biden Administration’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate imposed on the nation’s largest employers while allowing a similar vaccine mandate to proceed for healthcare workers.

In a 6-3 ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the Supreme Court acknowledged that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) may have exceeded its authority when it ordered companies with 100 or more workers to require that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine or be tested weekly and wear face masks. The Court noted that “Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases.” However, in Biden v. Missouri, a 5-4 Court ruled that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the statutory authority to require that healthcare providers comply with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for their employees as a condition of receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding.

“These rulings reinforce the haphazard state of affairs right now when it comes to these COVID-19 vaccine mandates,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “At a time when COVID-19 cases are surging even among the vaccinated, causing the efficacy of the vaccines and boosters to be called into question, the government and private employers need to reconsider the heavy-handed nature of these mandates, which violate every constitutional safeguard for privacy, bodily integrity and religious freedom.”

In November 2021, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard ordering large companies (with 100 or more workers) to require their employees to either receive a COVID-19 vaccination or obtain weekly negative coronavirus test results, at their own expense and on their own time, and wear face coverings to work. The OSHA rule, which was supposed to take effect on Jan. 4, 2022, impacts more than 80 million workers. A similar mandate, issued by HHS, requires more than 10 million health-care workers at 76,000 facilities that receive federal Medicare and Medicaid funding to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Although healthcare workers were not given a choice of being tested as an alternative to vaccination, they do have the option of applying for a religious or medical exemption. In blocking the OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate while allowing the healthcare worker mandate to remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court differentiated between the two cases, reasoning that OSHA’s vaccine mandate constituted an overreach of its authority over occupational workplace safety, while HHS’s mandate is in keeping with its authority in protecting the health and safety of Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Rutherford Institute attorneys warn that although the OSHA rule cannot be imposed on businesses at this time, employers can still on their own initiative require employees to be vaccinated if there are no state laws prohibiting such mandates. However, employees seeking religious or medical exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates may still be able to request such accommodations.

He’s exactly right!

Additionally, Maija Hahn, whom we had on The Sons of Liberty Radio last year, commented on the SCOTUS opinion and also answered questions on Friday. Take a look.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media



Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!


Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 888-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 888-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST


Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser!  Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen! 
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%!  (See Video)

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • Archiebunker

    Seems like scotus is STILL INFILTRATED WITH LIBTARDS. The quoted verbeage is weak as it is stated. J Seculow, has said, in an email I got this morning, “massive win” in all caps. The 6-3 win, Very closely tracks the brief we filed in this case ” ” . Reports I have looked at so far are 2 to 1 saying it is mushmouth nonsense. WTF is going on with this? I guess I will wait to see what those reporting here, who are my more favorites, say about it. Some, so far could be tasked with mis or dis information. If so, I don’t know why. Are we not past the time in which that tactic is necessary?
    I gotta go to work now. THERE, at least, I KNOW I will get some worth while results. Note to people who post videos here: Those who tiptoe around a topic, those who waffle or doubletalk or try to be polite about it Do Not make a good impression on me, or as I see it. Folks commenting here, Speak Up BOLDLY. Don’t half ass it or just read.

MOST RECENT
Load more ...

SignUp

Login

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.