SUCCESS: University REVERSES Vaccine Mandate After Lawsuit
(www.thewashingtongazette.com)
⚠️ Vax-tarded ⚠️
Comments (16)
sorted by:
Oh my gosh!! I can't believe it. I've been touting amendments 9 and 14 section 1 from the US Constitution as our right to liberty as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Now I see in this article that it was those two amendments that were cited in this case. See, people? I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar. I'm just an American citizen who actually read the constitution. Try it, you'll like it!
But seriously, THIS is what we've got to do. I keep seeing posts here with "Wake up People!" in the title. (I find them a bit obnoxious, personally.) Well, what people really need to wake up about is the beautiful US Constitution. If you understand your rights are guaranteed by that document, you won't have to worry about 'my boss or school' is mandating the vaccines. They may try to make you think they have that power, but they do not.
Check out this quote from the article:
Haha, glad you did and glad you do. And yes, but that is the least they deserve!
Amen, Amen, Amen!! I'll bet you've read more of the constitution than a majority of modern day lawyers who are probably taught the constitutional interpretations of liberal / progressive / Marxist "scholars" over the actual constitution and the writings of the authors themselves. Not all modern-day lawyers though. Thank God there are still good ones.
The right to property, which is protected by the 9th amendment, will save the 2nd amendment too.
For the professor only....not the rest of the campus
I'm danger close to GMU. My wife is having dinner with one of her idiot lib friends who works for GMU tonight. I told her not to get too close to her as she is fully vaxxed. And still stupid. Damn I hate that bitch.
Only because others haven't challenged it. He's the first.
Some of yall don't actually read articles, and it shows. The mandate is still in place, this individual received a medical exemption.
Some of yall don't actually read articles, and it shows.
Common problem around here.
unfortunately they settled out of court with one man, but xontinue the same policy for all others.
up to us to spread this far and wide. they didn't change policy because they think no one else will try the same route and why tangle with a legal expert over this?
also highly likely the arguments he prepared are sound in that jurisdiction
I agree it is important. But they didnt want to go to trial, that would set precedent. We neee class action to take it to trial.