The First Amendment Re-imagined
Imagine that Covid vaccine mandates lead to endemic headache caused by decreased circulation (blood clots). Due to this new public health emergency as well as representing a major threat to US productivity, the CDC mandates daily aspirin, reversing its most recent advice discouraging daily aspirin owing to gastric bleeding. Should citizens resist these mandates? On the one hand, government is only trying to ‘help’ reduce headache; on the other hand, this is an emergency of their making and may kill more people due to gastric bleeding than the vaccines themselves? Does the government have the authority to mandate a medicine if ‘national security’ is threatened? How many times have we heard ‘economic security is national security?’ The government can draft you into military service? What’s the difference? Can you refuse to serve in the army if the government illegally stages a coup in say, Ukraine? What if it stages a pandemic, mandates a deadly vaccine, then mandates aspirin to treat the vaccine side effects? Where does it end?
I have a somewhat unique interpretation of the First Amendment; I think it’s actually much broader than most imagine. Allow me to explain. If I believe vaccines are deadly, my belief is useless unless I have the power to refuse them. If I can’t refuse vaccines under the First Amendment, I’m no different than someone who is ‘allowed’ to believe in God but not allowed to express his faith by attending church. In other words, freedom of speech is freedom of thought and also freedom to act on that thought. Not taking a medicine or poison masquerading as medicine can never be a crime because the belief that underpins non-compliance cannot be separated from the non-compliance itself. A First Amendment that does not protect sincerely held beliefs (religious or not), is not worth the paper it’s written on.
Is it too late for me to acquire a mail order law degree and join oral arguments before the SCOTUS? Perhaps I could take an express correspondence law degree then skip the Bar exam in Washington State?
When the Founders used the term Free Speech, they didn’t mean writing fiction with one’s mouth; they meant speech that reflects your beliefs, beliefs you have the right to live by. What if the government said punctual employees, by their very punctuality, stigmatize lazy employees and therefore classed punctuality as a form of hate speech (micro-punctuality-aggression or MPA)? Would this same government be within its rights to order the punctual to start showing up late?
After all, what’s more important nowadays than DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion)?
Shouldn’t Equity ‘include’ the tardy? Won’t the tardy be stigmatized if the punctual keep showing up on time? You may scoff, but I don’t think we’re too far off from this kind of ‘Idiocrasy.’
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/
ChatGPT:
Your hypothetical scenario raises several complex ethical, legal, and societal questions, so let's break it down.
Covid Vaccine Mandates and Health Emergencies
Ethical Dilemma: Mandating vaccines and medications like aspirin can raise ethical concerns, especially if they come with potential risks. Balancing individual freedoms with public health imperatives is a delicate matter.
Government Authority: Governments may invoke various powers during emergencies, but these powers are typically subject to legal and constitutional constraints. Mandates must be justifiable and proportionate to the threat.
Individual Rights: Your interpretation of the First Amendment is an interesting one, emphasizing freedom of thought and action. However, individual rights sometimes conflict with collective interests, leading to complex legal debates.
Legal Pathways
Mail Order Law Degree: Obtaining a law degree through non-traditional means might not qualify you to argue before the Supreme Court. The legal profession typically requires rigorous training and accreditation.
SCOTUS Arguments: Appearing before the Supreme Court usually demands extensive legal experience and expertise. However, legal advocacy can take various forms, and you could contribute to debates on these issues in other capacities.
DEI and Workplace Dynamics
Equity and Inclusion: Policies aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are important in modern workplaces. However, implementing these policies must consider various perspectives to avoid unintended consequences or discrimination against certain groups, such as punctual employees.
Hypothetical Scenario: While your hypothetical scenario about punctuality might seem extreme, it highlights the potential for unintended consequences or overreach in policy-making. Striking a balance between promoting equity and respecting individual differences is crucial.
In summary, your concerns touch on fundamental issues of individual rights, government authority, and societal values. Exploring these topics further through legal and ethical discourse can contribute to a better understanding of how to navigate complex challenges in public health, governance, and workplace dynamics.