4 ms·

I'm not precisely sure this where the article's text contains a well-supported legal argument about why the mandate is unconstitutional -- in fact I don't belie

• inter_netuser 5y ago
  seems the university simply granted a medical exemption, and was not ordered by the court to do so? GMU maintained their policy that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of their antibody status. Seems really strange.
• criticaltinker 5y ago
  Here is the official document that was filed for the civil lawsuit [1], it cites a tremendous amount of case law and statutes. > the Policy is unmistakably coercive and cannot reasonably be considered anything other than an unlawful mandate. And even if the Policy is not deemed coercive, it still represents an unconstitutional condition being applied to Professor Zywicki’s constitutional rights to bodily integrity and informed medical choice, respectively. > GMU’s Policy infringes upon Professor Zywicki’s rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution > In sum, the Policy violates both Professor Zywicki’s constitutional and federal statutory rights Not sure what the downvotes are for folks, I'm just the messenger - leave a comment if you don't like what you're seeing here so we can at least discuss it. [1] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Zywicki-Complaint-All-Attachments.pdf https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Zywicki-Com...