Seeking to persuade the most influential constitutional scholar of our day that, at the least, mandates of drugs that do not prevent infection and transmission should be unconstitutional.
Especially given the fact that the medical establishment has agreed to a new definition of vaccine where prevention of infection or transmission are not inherent qualities of the medication. They are essentially defined as palliative medications. With such a loose definition, if mandating "vaccines" is allowed, the government could theoretically mandate nearly any medication.
That seems to be their strategy. However, the Nuremberg Code preempts any "redefinition" these neo-Nazi use to force medical procedures on the unwilling. It is a basic human right to give informed consent and to refuse any medical procedure. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.
We tolerated an obscene test of the limits of the Nuremberg code once. We, the People, should not let them test it again.
This good work is God sent. You are paving the way for many. Inspired living. Thank you Mr. Siri and the rest of the legal teams working in this vein across the country as well!
If mandates are to protect the public against a deadly disease, why not mandate for all at the federal level, including for the CDC, FDA, NIH employees, and politicians in the senate and congress?
The fact that companies have mandates for new employees and not existing ones, for example, is evidence of them being arbitrary & capricious and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Yes. The fact that the alphabet agencies and Congress were exempt from mandates is very telling. It makes me wonder if JB and others actually got the real deal or just saline. I’m thinking that I already know the answer...
You do. They didn't. Or, like Pfizer employees, they got special batches. We'd be seeing at least a few falling out/over by now. Im not sure of the median age of our Congress but there's way too many over 65. Same with the NFL compared to the rest of the world's athletes. I think the Hamlin thing was completely staged.
I agree. It seems that a lot of the athletes that have collapsed or have died are 1) from other countries, 2) mostly soccer players. Why are not more of our NFL players having issues? Did they not get the real deal? Or are they ticking time bombs? There are former NFL who have had issues; blood clots, turbo cancers, SADS, etc. What's the deal?
BREAKING - 10 min. video - March 6 - Swiss President Berset named in lawsuit filed by British Swiss Banker Pascal Najadi vs Pfizer Inc. & FDA with Supreme Court NY, USA - https://rumble.com/v2c2ut4-breaking-swiss-president-berset-named-in-us-supreme-court-law-suit-along-wi.html From badgerbrigante - 14 hours ago - "Pascal. Incredible news you bloody wonderful fellow!! Well done and thank you for taking up the charge on this SO IMPORTANT issue. You are an inspiration. Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man! I sincerely hope both of your cases pass to the next stage and the accused are charged - then we will know the justice system is truly willing to engage."
They give HepB at birth! Totally insane. If they're worried, they should just test the mother. Plus the hepB vaccine was trailed for an entire FIVE DAYS!😡
Yes, the caveat was “reasonable” and he also stated in order to prevent a communicable disease from harming the public. When the government (CDC Director) says it does not prevent communication (spread) of the disease... case closed. No longer reasonable and irrational on its face!
Perhaps you should have asked him whether we should also defer unquestioningly to that 1905 Court’s position on equal pay for women, Jim Crow laws and gay marriage?
and on some of those issues, Margaret, there are those who might say "And more's the pity." I couldn't possibly comment on that but merely point out the blindingly obvious double-standard.
He's a legal scholar, giving us the legal facts based on all of the actual court cases. But, I'd like to hear what Robert Barnes would have to say about the issue.
Absolutely loved this! You give so much hope in your work to the injured and all who were forced against their will to be jabbed with new technology that didn’t do anything that was promised by our government. Since this video was recorded there’s been A LOT of good studies showing the utter uselessness of the vax. Yet the gaslighting continues of those that were injured! Thank you to you and your team, I am praying for success for all.
Aaron, I listened to the debate and I've often heard you on The Highwire, and I'm a big fan of yours, but I feel that you are conceding too much when you agreed with Chemerinsky that the constitutionality of vaccine mandates is settled law. Check out this excellent 2005 analysis, Jacobsen v Massachusetts: It's Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather's Public Health Law, which argues that constitutional law has evolved beyond Jacobsen to show greater respect for individual liberty when it comes to public health decisions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/. Moreover, the article contains this critical information that gets overlooked in the debates on this issue. The authors write: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it unnecessary to worry about any possible harm from vaccination because no one could actually be forced to be vaccinated: "If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under statute would be the payment of $5." I know you've opined that Jacobsen only says it's okay to impose a modest fine, but I think the Mass Supreme Court decision clarifies how limited this decision really was meant to be. The state court has already said you can't forcibly vaccinate anyone; all you can do is impose a modest fine. So it's wrong to construe Jacobsen to uphold vaccine mandates as, say, a condition of employment, going to school, or receiving a kidney transplant--the deprivation of which is a far greater punishment than a fine which would be about $500 in today's dollars).. I encourage you to read the MA state supreme court decision which preceded the US Supreme Court decision. There may be a valuable argument in this, which so far has been overlooked. PS. I'm a graduate of your rival law school
Any constitutional expert that considers any mandatory medical procedure forced upon We the People as constitutional has not understood the constitution; thus, is an expert only in so far as their misunderstanding of the Constitution.
"The constitution itself means nothing when words and definitions are twisted by society."
... or when the interpretations thereof are taught by a very specific idealogical and cultural minority of the population as US Universities have been repeatedly shown to have.
In reality, he thinks it’s Constitutional because he got the vax and so wants everyone else to as well. The rest of his ‘argument’ is pure rationalization.
What a weasel, as Dean Chemerinsky right away concedes that his argument in not based on the merits or rightness of the mandates but on legal precedent. Cop out, coward, spineless, unmanly, and how our world is on a downward spiral. At the time of this recording, there was already evidence of widespread harm. Hiding behind platitudes does not protect him from culpability of knowledge of wrongness.
Aaron Siri, you are one of my heroes! Also, I love that you have a sense of humor! Great debate and like others, I too, proudly support ICANs legal fund! God Bless you and keep up the stellar work!
Under no circumstances are vaccine mandates constitutional, or even moral.
1. If a vaccine works then, mandates are an unnecessary infringement on liberty.
2. If a vaccine does not work, then mandates are not only unnecessary but evil.
Conclusion: vaccine mandates are never necessary and should never be used.
Especially given the fact that the medical establishment has agreed to a new definition of vaccine where prevention of infection or transmission are not inherent qualities of the medication. They are essentially defined as palliative medications. With such a loose definition, if mandating "vaccines" is allowed, the government could theoretically mandate nearly any medication.
That seems to be their strategy. However, the Nuremberg Code preempts any "redefinition" these neo-Nazi use to force medical procedures on the unwilling. It is a basic human right to give informed consent and to refuse any medical procedure. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.
We tolerated an obscene test of the limits of the Nuremberg code once. We, the People, should not let them test it again.
Well said.
Thank you!
You are so amazing. I am such a proud funder of ICAN’s legal fund!
You are an American hero Aaron Siri!
This good work is God sent. You are paving the way for many. Inspired living. Thank you Mr. Siri and the rest of the legal teams working in this vein across the country as well!
If mandates are to protect the public against a deadly disease, why not mandate for all at the federal level, including for the CDC, FDA, NIH employees, and politicians in the senate and congress?
The fact that companies have mandates for new employees and not existing ones, for example, is evidence of them being arbitrary & capricious and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Yes. The fact that the alphabet agencies and Congress were exempt from mandates is very telling. It makes me wonder if JB and others actually got the real deal or just saline. I’m thinking that I already know the answer...
You do. They didn't. Or, like Pfizer employees, they got special batches. We'd be seeing at least a few falling out/over by now. Im not sure of the median age of our Congress but there's way too many over 65. Same with the NFL compared to the rest of the world's athletes. I think the Hamlin thing was completely staged.
I agree. It seems that a lot of the athletes that have collapsed or have died are 1) from other countries, 2) mostly soccer players. Why are not more of our NFL players having issues? Did they not get the real deal? Or are they ticking time bombs? There are former NFL who have had issues; blood clots, turbo cancers, SADS, etc. What's the deal?
I know a massage therapist for many NFL players. She said many many are not vaxxed.
I've heard that fake vax cards are rampant in Hollywood. Someone must've forgot to tell the Beiber and his wife, tho.
BREAKING - 10 min. video - March 6 - Swiss President Berset named in lawsuit filed by British Swiss Banker Pascal Najadi vs Pfizer Inc. & FDA with Supreme Court NY, USA - https://rumble.com/v2c2ut4-breaking-swiss-president-berset-named-in-us-supreme-court-law-suit-along-wi.html From badgerbrigante - 14 hours ago - "Pascal. Incredible news you bloody wonderful fellow!! Well done and thank you for taking up the charge on this SO IMPORTANT issue. You are an inspiration. Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man! I sincerely hope both of your cases pass to the next stage and the accused are charged - then we will know the justice system is truly willing to engage."
So basically the government can mandate dog shit, as long as they call it vaccines? (rhetorical question)
No, the courts have ruled that the mandates must be "reasonable". The Dean mentioned this a few times.
Mandating vaccines for hepB (an STD) to attend school is obviously insane, yet they allow it.
They give HepB at birth! Totally insane. If they're worried, they should just test the mother. Plus the hepB vaccine was trailed for an entire FIVE DAYS!😡
I heard they test moms for hepb in Europe not vxed unless warranted.
Yes, but the courts get to define "reasonable" as well.
True, but Pascal Najadi's new lawsuit in US has raised my spirits, anyway! Worth watching the video.
Yes, the caveat was “reasonable” and he also stated in order to prevent a communicable disease from harming the public. When the government (CDC Director) says it does not prevent communication (spread) of the disease... case closed. No longer reasonable and irrational on its face!
Absolutely. The mandates then should have fallen like dominoes!
the court ruled that the fine be reasonable.
"Reasonable" to who?
Great minds...
Chemerinsky is a good example of the difference between being credentialed and being intelligent.
I always called these academics who make stuff up like Critical Race Theory “cretins with credentials”.
Chemerinsky was a midwit when I was there - the additional smug condescension he’s gained from becoming Dean isn’t an improvement.
Perhaps you should have asked him whether we should also defer unquestioningly to that 1905 Court’s position on equal pay for women, Jim Crow laws and gay marriage?
Aaron did bring up gay marriage.
Exactly. This is far from 1905.
and on some of those issues, Margaret, there are those who might say "And more's the pity." I couldn't possibly comment on that but merely point out the blindingly obvious double-standard.
and/or having a heart
He's a legal scholar, giving us the legal facts based on all of the actual court cases. But, I'd like to hear what Robert Barnes would have to say about the issue.
Barnes had a debate with Dershowitz on the subject of vaccine mandates. It's worth taking a look.
Absolutely loved this! You give so much hope in your work to the injured and all who were forced against their will to be jabbed with new technology that didn’t do anything that was promised by our government. Since this video was recorded there’s been A LOT of good studies showing the utter uselessness of the vax. Yet the gaslighting continues of those that were injured! Thank you to you and your team, I am praying for success for all.
Aaron, I listened to the debate and I've often heard you on The Highwire, and I'm a big fan of yours, but I feel that you are conceding too much when you agreed with Chemerinsky that the constitutionality of vaccine mandates is settled law. Check out this excellent 2005 analysis, Jacobsen v Massachusetts: It's Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather's Public Health Law, which argues that constitutional law has evolved beyond Jacobsen to show greater respect for individual liberty when it comes to public health decisions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/. Moreover, the article contains this critical information that gets overlooked in the debates on this issue. The authors write: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it unnecessary to worry about any possible harm from vaccination because no one could actually be forced to be vaccinated: "If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under statute would be the payment of $5." I know you've opined that Jacobsen only says it's okay to impose a modest fine, but I think the Mass Supreme Court decision clarifies how limited this decision really was meant to be. The state court has already said you can't forcibly vaccinate anyone; all you can do is impose a modest fine. So it's wrong to construe Jacobsen to uphold vaccine mandates as, say, a condition of employment, going to school, or receiving a kidney transplant--the deprivation of which is a far greater punishment than a fine which would be about $500 in today's dollars).. I encourage you to read the MA state supreme court decision which preceded the US Supreme Court decision. There may be a valuable argument in this, which so far has been overlooked. PS. I'm a graduate of your rival law school
Excellent analysis! Thank you for taking the time to write it. I can only hope that Aaron Siri will read it too.
Any constitutional expert that considers any mandatory medical procedure forced upon We the People as constitutional has not understood the constitution; thus, is an expert only in so far as their misunderstanding of the Constitution.
The constitution didn't stop slavery, apartheid, or considering native Americans as not a human being...
It's public opinion that influences the interpretation of the law and the constitution.
The constitution itself means nothing when words and definitions are twisted by society.
https://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." - Judge Charles Evans Hughes
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ― Benjamin Franklin
"The constitution itself means nothing when words and definitions are twisted by society."
... or when the interpretations thereof are taught by a very specific idealogical and cultural minority of the population as US Universities have been repeatedly shown to have.
Mr. Chemerinsky is a good at arguing the law, but has no interest in the truth. Which makes him a voided soul and a waste of time, in my opinion.
Chemerinsky's main argument seems to be, it's constituinal because lots of courts have said so.
Yes. That is "Case Law."
In reality, he thinks it’s Constitutional because he got the vax and so wants everyone else to as well. The rest of his ‘argument’ is pure rationalization.
What a weasel, as Dean Chemerinsky right away concedes that his argument in not based on the merits or rightness of the mandates but on legal precedent. Cop out, coward, spineless, unmanly, and how our world is on a downward spiral. At the time of this recording, there was already evidence of widespread harm. Hiding behind platitudes does not protect him from culpability of knowledge of wrongness.
The dean looks like he is vaccine injured..
Aaron Siri, you are one of my heroes! Also, I love that you have a sense of humor! Great debate and like others, I too, proudly support ICANs legal fund! God Bless you and keep up the stellar work!