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.
I, too, graduated from UC Berkeley, but with an undergraduate degree in environmental science.
I was so disappointed in how UC Berkeley handled this covid nonsense that I swore off all UC's for my son. If they couldn't figure out that masks don't work and vaccine mandates are unethical, then who could?
I'm actually pretty happy right now to hear that there was a group of students that protested the vaccine mandates. Thank God for The
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.
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."
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.
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.
I, too, graduated from UC Berkeley, but with an undergraduate degree in environmental science.
I was so disappointed in how UC Berkeley handled this covid nonsense that I swore off all UC's for my son. If they couldn't figure out that masks don't work and vaccine mandates are unethical, then who could?
I'm actually pretty happy right now to hear that there was a group of students that protested the vaccine mandates. Thank God for The
Free Thinkers!
Go Bears! 🐻
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.
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.
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)
Chemerinsky is a good example of the difference between being credentialed and being intelligent.
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.
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.
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..