Dr. Martin Hash Podcast

When a federal judge considers an issue that infringes liberty, they categorize the impact as either “rational basis,” “intermediate scrutiny,” or “strict scrutiny.” The law or policy must be necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest" and "narrowly tailored" to achieve the “compelling purpose,” and uses the "least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose. At the rational review level, this hurdle is relatively easily met and upheld in the liberty vs. socialism sacrifice. However, as the impact on liberty increases, the bar increases, and at the extremes, severe restraints on personal liberty must pass strict scrutiny. Unfortunately, as America has become more socialistic and authoritarian, personal liberty has rapidly degraded by lawmakers & courts ignoring the strict scrutiny rule: lockdowns, national guard in the Capitol, censorship, etc. Liberty should only be circumscribed after rigorous consideration, and be periodically reviewed to see if the infringement should be removed. No other country is based on liberty so they didn't even question this most important aspect of the lockdowns, but the U.S. was supposed to have liberty as its #1 concern. Whether people die of Covid is not the issue, the issue is proscribed liberty: unable to pursue their careers, travel prohibited, forced to wear masks. We are being asked to sacrifice our liberty for undoubtedly questionable motives. Maybe at first, especially with wildly over-exaggerated claims, authorities were granted lots of leeway, but that was quickly over: ultimately, the Shamdemic was mostly lies for ulterior machinations we can only guess at: political power-mongering, Climate Alarmists taking the opportunity to shutdown progress, negative Chinese intentions, or simply plain incompetence. The reason makes no difference, without strict scrutiny, now Americans are conditioned to sacrifice their liberty anytime elites tell them too.