A totalitarian state can do anything it wants to its subjects. They're not citizens and have no rights. Now that USA has transitioned into a totalitarian state one would expect that no civil rights or human rights apply at all, to anyone. Certainly when the state claims the power to forcibly inject anyone it wants with whatever it wants, well, there are no human rights. Understanding of that situation leads to dystopian fiction like this:
Thanks for making the legal point. That said, the totalitarian state in question no longer even pretends to follow its own laws or consitution. C.f. The Julian Assange persecution
In Canada, the govt is advising dicktors, through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to refer someone for a mental health check if they refuse the vax because they are acting irrationally. That's for real folks, so I'm guessing if they haven't already passed some law about this, they're about to.
I hadn't been all that familiar with the history of vaccines in this country, or the world for that matter, outside of the common story that I have always heard about how small pox and polio vaccines ended these horrific pandemics. However, when I recently read Dissolving Illusions (https://dissolvingillusions.com/), I was shocked to find out the history of forced vaccinations in this country, and the world, along with the idea that they caused harm with any supposed benefits being highly questionable.
A huge problem is Jacobson (1905). It created, or declared, the almost unlimited police powers of the states. So, I don't know whether a state can, under the guise of a fake pandemic (which is all of them), force a needle into your arm. But it can do almost as much by putting you under house arrest, banning you from working, etc. -- all under the pretext of preventing contagion. As long as people believe in contagion, the tyrannical restrictions have a "rational basis", which seems to be all that federal courts need to find in order to uphold them (as long as no constitutional right is involved).
And after this covid fraud, and what I consider to be Democide, should one of my fellow Americans come to my door to force me on threat of violence to get jabbed, one of us is likely to die.
One thing few people understand is that in classical times, 'liberty' had two important connotations, of which we've forgotten the second.
The first was to be at liberty as an individual.
The second was freedom from rule of your own people (tribe, ethnos) by your enemies.
Forgetting the second one leads to extermination, because a group that doesn't consider itself part of you will oppress you far worse than a tyrant who considers himself one of you.
Some of you are ready to take the thorn out of your own eye and see who your people are now. It's quite biblical.
Wasn't this the legislation that made what Alan said lawful(unlawful technically) and that was quoted on your thread:
2019/06/24 - Congress and President Trump passed Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act - PL 116-22, 133 Stat. 905. Amended Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201), further consolidating federal power in HHS Secretary’s hands during public health emergencies, further merging public health and law enforcement systems, and further subordinating state, tribal, county and municipal governments and American civilians to direct federal control.
and it came to be because this happened:
2020/01/27 - US Secretary of Health and Human Services Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists. Signed Jan. 31, 2020, effective Jan. 27, 2020. Renewed every 90 days since then, most recently Oct. 13, 2022. Also signed a ‘declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of this novel coronavirus.’ The determination and declaration were recorded in the Federal Register as taking effect Feb. 4, 2020. 85 Federal Register 7316.
Listening again to Dershowitz (Dec 2020) explaining his POV (hedged continually with "I believe"s and "hypothetically"s), & the right to preemptively make laws about medicine before the science exists, it struck me how useful such points of view would be both to virologists (who are basically agreeing to just make up stuff--read Wissenschafftplus) and Fauci et al. poised to patent--for their own private profit-- every "discovery" (or invention) for which our regressive tax dollars fund research, as Dr. David E. Martin has been pointing out. A point of view which surely would be valuable to Harvard, with its endowment fund that's bigger than many countries' entire wealth, and explain Deshowitz' long tenure there. Too bad Goodman didn't delve into any of that, instead of throwing a hissyfit. Laws, as FIJA points out, aren't always good, which is why juries are necessary as the last ditch effort to nullify them; but that doesn't stop legislators from cranking out more (for SOMEBODY's profit).
If a poisonous needle was constitutional, then why not the death camps?
A totalitarian state can do anything it wants to its subjects. They're not citizens and have no rights. Now that USA has transitioned into a totalitarian state one would expect that no civil rights or human rights apply at all, to anyone. Certainly when the state claims the power to forcibly inject anyone it wants with whatever it wants, well, there are no human rights. Understanding of that situation leads to dystopian fiction like this:
https://odysee.com/@jeremypoole:b/UNJABBED-Episode-1-by-Ken-Avidor:4
Thanks for making the legal point. That said, the totalitarian state in question no longer even pretends to follow its own laws or consitution. C.f. The Julian Assange persecution
Thank you so much, Katherine; for your legal mindfulness, helping us to understand what the law states on these topics...
Question: Is bodily trespass under medical pretexts constitutional?
Answer: It's a crime. It's a battery. It's illegal.
Unconstitutional
Pseudo "legal"
Not lawful
Simply wrong.
Authoritarian
Evil.
In Canada, the govt is advising dicktors, through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to refer someone for a mental health check if they refuse the vax because they are acting irrationally. That's for real folks, so I'm guessing if they haven't already passed some law about this, they're about to.
I hadn't been all that familiar with the history of vaccines in this country, or the world for that matter, outside of the common story that I have always heard about how small pox and polio vaccines ended these horrific pandemics. However, when I recently read Dissolving Illusions (https://dissolvingillusions.com/), I was shocked to find out the history of forced vaccinations in this country, and the world, along with the idea that they caused harm with any supposed benefits being highly questionable.
A huge problem is Jacobson (1905). It created, or declared, the almost unlimited police powers of the states. So, I don't know whether a state can, under the guise of a fake pandemic (which is all of them), force a needle into your arm. But it can do almost as much by putting you under house arrest, banning you from working, etc. -- all under the pretext of preventing contagion. As long as people believe in contagion, the tyrannical restrictions have a "rational basis", which seems to be all that federal courts need to find in order to uphold them (as long as no constitutional right is involved).
I couldn't read it all. It's too upsetting.
the law was about a FINE. not allowing the state to force inject you. the pedo was WRONG
Only an ignoramus would believe a Democrat believes in Democracy.
Post saved.
And after this covid fraud, and what I consider to be Democide, should one of my fellow Americans come to my door to force me on threat of violence to get jabbed, one of us is likely to die.
After Pedo Joe's speech, it should be obvious what comes next. Political arrests.
Just like in every other totalitarian state.
But my Smith & Wesson beats that syringe every time!
One thing few people understand is that in classical times, 'liberty' had two important connotations, of which we've forgotten the second.
The first was to be at liberty as an individual.
The second was freedom from rule of your own people (tribe, ethnos) by your enemies.
Forgetting the second one leads to extermination, because a group that doesn't consider itself part of you will oppress you far worse than a tyrant who considers himself one of you.
Some of you are ready to take the thorn out of your own eye and see who your people are now. It's quite biblical.
Wasn't this the legislation that made what Alan said lawful(unlawful technically) and that was quoted on your thread:
2019/06/24 - Congress and President Trump passed Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act - PL 116-22, 133 Stat. 905. Amended Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201), further consolidating federal power in HHS Secretary’s hands during public health emergencies, further merging public health and law enforcement systems, and further subordinating state, tribal, county and municipal governments and American civilians to direct federal control.
and it came to be because this happened:
2020/01/27 - US Secretary of Health and Human Services Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists. Signed Jan. 31, 2020, effective Jan. 27, 2020. Renewed every 90 days since then, most recently Oct. 13, 2022. Also signed a ‘declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of this novel coronavirus.’ The determination and declaration were recorded in the Federal Register as taking effect Feb. 4, 2020. 85 Federal Register 7316.
Listening again to Dershowitz (Dec 2020) explaining his POV (hedged continually with "I believe"s and "hypothetically"s), & the right to preemptively make laws about medicine before the science exists, it struck me how useful such points of view would be both to virologists (who are basically agreeing to just make up stuff--read Wissenschafftplus) and Fauci et al. poised to patent--for their own private profit-- every "discovery" (or invention) for which our regressive tax dollars fund research, as Dr. David E. Martin has been pointing out. A point of view which surely would be valuable to Harvard, with its endowment fund that's bigger than many countries' entire wealth, and explain Deshowitz' long tenure there. Too bad Goodman didn't delve into any of that, instead of throwing a hissyfit. Laws, as FIJA points out, aren't always good, which is why juries are necessary as the last ditch effort to nullify them; but that doesn't stop legislators from cranking out more (for SOMEBODY's profit).