126 Comments
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023

You are so amazing. I am such a proud funder of ICAN’s legal fund!

Expand full comment

You are an American hero Aaron Siri!

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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...

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I know a massage therapist for many NFL players. She said many many are not vaxxed.

Expand full comment

I've heard that fake vax cards are rampant in Hollywood. Someone must've forgot to tell the Beiber and his wife, tho.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

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."

Expand full comment

So basically the government can mandate dog shit, as long as they call it vaccines? (rhetorical question)

Expand full comment

No, the courts have ruled that the mandates must be "reasonable". The Dean mentioned this a few times.

Expand full comment

Mandating vaccines for hepB (an STD) to attend school is obviously insane, yet they allow it.

Expand full comment

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!😡

Expand full comment

I heard they test moms for hepb in Europe not vxed unless warranted.

Expand full comment

Yes, but the courts get to define "reasonable" as well.

Expand full comment

True, but Pascal Najadi's new lawsuit in US has raised my spirits, anyway! Worth watching the video.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

Absolutely. The mandates then should have fallen like dominoes!

Expand full comment

the court ruled that the fine be reasonable.

Expand full comment

"Reasonable" to who?

Expand full comment

Great minds...

Expand full comment

Chemerinsky is a good example of the difference between being credentialed and being intelligent.

Expand full comment

I always called these academics who make stuff up like Critical Race Theory “cretins with credentials”.

Expand full comment

Chemerinsky was a midwit when I was there - the additional smug condescension he’s gained from becoming Dean isn’t an improvement.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Aaron did bring up gay marriage.

Expand full comment

Exactly. This is far from 1905.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

and/or having a heart

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Barnes had a debate with Dershowitz on the subject of vaccine mandates. It's worth taking a look.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis! Thank you for taking the time to write it. I can only hope that Aaron Siri will read it too.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Chemerinsky's main argument seems to be, it's constituinal because lots of courts have said so.

Expand full comment

Yes. That is "Case Law."

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

The dean looks like he is vaccine injured..

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment