• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

We are sometimes winning now — the Covid tyranny optimism thread

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
608

Rym

New Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2021
Messages
4
Location
Buffalo, NY

I have found that generally those who give the most lip service to being "for the constitution" are exactly the opposite. This ruling is not what it appears. The correct answer is: the mandate is unconstitutional because there is no provision in the constitution that permits it. End of story.

These judges are saying the mandate is constitutional by omitting the actual reason it is unconstitutional. What they provide instead is a BS laundry list of administrative errors, each of whom could be corrected in time. Here are excerpts in quotes, shortened to pertinent sections. Bold list is my interpretation. Bold in quote is my emphasis. TLDR at end.


1. OSHA must show Covid-19 exists in all workplaces.
“A natural first step in enacting a lawful ETS [Emergency Temporary Standard] is to show that employees covered by the ETS are in fact exposed to [...] Covid-19 [...] OSHA is required to make findings of exposure—or at least the presence of COVID-19—in all covered workplaces.”

2. OSHA must show Covid-19 is a danger.
"[...] it remains unclear that COVID19 [...] poses the kind of grave danger the statue contemplates."

3. Irrelevant BS
"[The Court] points out that several members of the Biden administration spoke out against a federal vaccine mandate before ultimately issuing one."

4. Irrelevant BS x2
"It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.”

5. Irrelevant BS x3
"OSHA itself acknowledges the inherently coercive nature of vaccine mandates. [...] OSHA prefers to encourage rather than force [...]"

6. OSHA must show 'infectious diseases' are workplace danger
“OSHA lacks evidence to conclude that all infectious diseases to which employees may be exposed at a workplace constitute a ‘grave danger’ for which an ETS is an appropriate remedy.”

7. We need moooooar!
“At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive, [...] no protection [for those employed by a] company [that] employs 99 workers or fewer. [...This] underinclusiveness [...] is a sign the government's [...] liberty-restraining pronouncement is not compelling.

8. No to Biden. We need legislation.
"[...][t]he Agency [Biden's] cannot use its ETS powers as a stop-gap measure,[...]"

9. If a big deal, why the delay?
"[...] the delayed timeline from OSHA itself throws into serious question whether or not the mandate is grounded in the ’emergency powers’ of the executive branch."

10. Why does OSHA need this power?
“It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns that either make it more likely that the petitioners will succeed on the merits, or at least counsel against adopting OSHA’s broad reading of § 655(c) as a matter of statutory interpretation.”

11. Doesn't fall under Commerce Clause, no kidding
“A person’s choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity.”

12. Jurisdiction is Under State Police Power
“[...]the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power.

13. Not for OSHA, yet
"[...] power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation,[...]the Mandate exceeds the bounds of OSHA’s statutory authority.”

14. We will wait for now
"[...]The judges ruled that the failure to grant the stay would cause irreparable harm to the petitioners, as well as affected companies and employees. It adds that the emergency stay is “in the public interest.”"

15. Yuck. Note the qualitative "public interest" at the forefront
"The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials."

16. We need Congress
"Ultimately, the Court rebuked the mandate because such powers fall within the Legislative Branch, and not the Executive Branch."

17. No again to OSHA. Meh. OSHA was small fry to begin with.

Apologies for the long post breaking down Pina's link.

TLDR: Not for OSHA; let the States and/or Congress pass legislation. This leaves room in the future for other mandates. In other words, yup mandate whatever, just do it "right." See #12 and #16 bold.
 
Last edited:

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
3,408
Location
USA
:thumbsup:Dutch government decides natural immunity lasts 365 days:


Dutch government announced this week (November 2nd, 2021) its decision to extend the duration of the natural immunity certificate from 180 days to 365 days

This decision is based on recent scientific findings about the longevity of natural immunity which occurs after an infection. Experts support the notion that this immunity continues for longer than previously assumed.

German virology community, which also proposes to extend the natural immunity certificate to 365 days.

❓Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US? ⁉️

(A comment on The Treehouse website.)
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
3,408
Location
USA
I have found that generally those who give the most lip service to being "for the constitution" are exactly the opposite. This ruling is not what it appears. The correct answer is: the mandate is unconstitutional because there is no provision in the constitution that permits it. End of story.

These judges are saying the mandate is constitutional by omitting the actual reason it is unconstitutional. What they provide instead is a BS laundry list of administrative errors, each of whom could be corrected in time. Here are excerpts in quotes, shortened to pertinent sections. Bold list is my interpretation. Bold in quote is my emphasis. TLDR at end.


1. OSHA must show Covid-19 exists in all workplaces.
“A natural first step in enacting a lawful ETS [Emergency Temporary Standard] is to show that employees covered by the ETS are in fact exposed to [...] Covid-19 [...] OSHA is required to make findings of exposure—or at least the presence of COVID-19—in all covered workplaces.”

2. OSHA must show Covid-19 is a danger.
"[...] it remains unclear that COVID19 [...] poses the kind of grave danger the statue contemplates."

3. Irrelevant BS
"[The Court] points out that several members of the Biden administration spoke out against a federal vaccine mandate before ultimately issuing one."

4. Irrelevant BS x2
"It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.”

5. Irrelevant BS x3
"OSHA itself acknowledges the inherently coercive nature of vaccine mandates. [...] OSHA prefers to encourage rather than force [...]"

6. OSHA must show 'infectious diseases' are workplace danger
“OSHA lacks evidence to conclude that all infectious diseases to which employees may be exposed at a workplace constitute a ‘grave danger’ for which an ETS is an appropriate remedy.”

7. We need moooooar!
“At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive, [...] no protection [for those employed by a] company [that] employs 99 workers or fewer. [...This] underinclusiveness [...] is a sign the government's [...] liberty-restraining pronouncement is not compelling.

8. No to Biden. We need legislation.
"[...][t]he Agency [Biden's] cannot use its ETS powers as a stop-gap measure,[...]"

9. If a big deal, why the delay?
"[...] the delayed timeline from OSHA itself throws into serious question whether or not the mandate is grounded in the ’emergency powers’ of the executive branch."

10. Why does OSHA need this power?
“It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns that either make it more likely that the petitioners will succeed on the merits, or at least counsel against adopting OSHA’s broad reading of § 655(c) as a matter of statutory interpretation.”

11. Doesn't fall under Commerce Clause, no kidding
“A person’s choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity.”

12. Jurisdiction is Under State Police Power
“[...]the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power.

13. Not for OSHA, yet
"[...] power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation,[...]the Mandate exceeds the bounds of OSHA’s statutory authority.”

14. We will wait for now
"[...]The judges ruled that the failure to grant the stay would cause irreparable harm to the petitioners, as well as affected companies and employees. It adds that the emergency stay is “in the public interest.”"

15. Yuck. Note the qualitative "public interest" at the forefront
"The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials."

16. We need Congress
"Ultimately, the Court rebuked the mandate because such powers fall within the Legislative Branch, and not the Executive Branch."

17. No again to OSHA. Meh. OSHA was small fry to begin with.

Apologies for the long post breaking down Pina's link.

TLDR: Not for OSHA; let the States and/or Congress pass legislation. This leaves room in the future for other mandates. In other words, yup mandate whatever, just do it "right." See #12 and #16 bold.
Thanks. Exactly.
 

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
608
Since the last time I looked at this site ten days ago, the number of Montanans listed as "fully vaccinated" has dropped from 56% to 50%. There is no explanation for why the change was made. Was the original data erroneous and has now been corrected? Or did whoever compiles these numbers change the definition of "fully vaccinated?" Or were 5-11 year-old potential clot-shot victims added to the eligible category? The latter, I imagine. I hope the kids' immune systems can fight this poison.

 
Last edited:

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
608
Interestingly, since the last time I looked at this site ten days ago, the number of Montanans listed as "fully vaccinated" has dropped from 55% to 50%. There is no explanation why the change was made. Was the original data erroneous and has now been corrected? Or did whoever compiles these numbers change the definition of "fully vaccinated?"

 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
3,408
Location
USA
The optimism comes from the fact that Dr Marik brought suit against this hospital that will not allow doctors to treat their patients appropriately so that they can recover.
At the same time, here it is, the owners/administrators of the hospital say that they have the right to determine treatment, not the patients and their doctors. This is what they want put into law.


CRITICAL UPDATES

Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Nov 15, 2021
The motion claims that Dr. Marik lacks standing to bring his complaint based on the hospital’s assertion that treatment decisions are made by hospital administrators and not between patients and their doctors.
Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
6,775
I have found that generally those who give the most lip service to being "for the constitution" are exactly the opposite. This ruling is not what it appears. The correct answer is: the mandate is unconstitutional because there is no provision in the constitution that permits it. End of story.
Wut? Things aren't this simple.
These judges are saying the mandate is constitutional by omitting the actual reason it is unconstitutional.
What kind of bizzaro logic is this? The courts act in regards to what is presented to them. They aren't saying anything about the mandate is constitutional by listing many key constitutional violations.
What they provide instead is a BS laundry list of administrative errors, each of whom could be corrected in time.
Lol, I like you think the Executive Branch trying to usurp power expressly delegated to the Legislative is just an "administrative error."
Here are excerpts in quotes, shortened to pertinent sections. Bold list is my interpretation. Bold in quote is my emphasis. TLDR at end.


1. OSHA must show Covid-19 exists in all workplaces.
“A natural first step in enacting a lawful ETS [Emergency Temporary Standard] is to show that employees covered by the ETS are in fact exposed to [...] Covid-19 [...] OSHA is required to make findings of exposure—or at least the presence of COVID-19—in all covered workplaces.”
Well, this makes sense. If OSHA is going to protect against some "danger," they should prove that the danger actually exists.
2. OSHA must show Covid-19 is a danger.
"[...] it remains unclear that COVID19 [...] poses the kind of grave danger the statue contemplates."
Same as point 1. This is talking about the limits of OSHA's powers.
6. OSHA must show 'infectious diseases' are workplace danger
“OSHA lacks evidence to conclude that all infectious diseases to which employees may be exposed at a workplace constitute a ‘grave danger’ for which an ETS is an appropriate remedy.”
Again, same as point 1.
7. We need moooooar!
“At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive, [...] no protection [for those employed by a] company [that] employs 99 workers or fewer. [...This] underinclusiveness [...] is a sign the government's [...] liberty-restraining pronouncement is not compelling.
This isn't so much a "we need moooooar" argument, but consistency. If OSHA declares that, say, benzene gas is a dangerous toxin, and that protective clothes and masks need to be worn when working with it, it would be ridiculous to only mandate the clothes and masks for companies of 100 or more. If there is a company of 40 people, can the employer just spray benzene gas in their employees faces, or let/make them work without gas masks and protective clothes? Why would some employees be put at risk, and maybe even their life threatened, just because their company only employees a few dozen people?
8. No to Biden. We need legislation.
"[...][t]he Agency [Biden's] cannot use its ETS powers as a stop-gap measure,[...]"
Again, saying that neither Biden nor OSHA have this authority. Again goes to Consitutional limits.
9. If a big deal, why the delay?
"[...] the delayed timeline from OSHA itself throws into serious question whether or not the mandate is grounded in the ’emergency powers’ of the executive branch."
This strikes to the heart of an "Emergency." Basically, tantamount to a mayor or governor trying to enact riot act protections a year after a riot happened, and finished.
10. Why does OSHA need this power?
“It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns that either make it more likely that the petitioners will succeed on the merits, or at least counsel against adopting OSHA’s broad reading of § 655(c) as a matter of statutory interpretation.”
Hmmm. Again, it sounds like they are saying that the mandate itself is unconstitutional.
11. Doesn't fall under Commerce Clause, no kidding
“A person’s choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity.”
Obviously, the Commerce Clause is key, as if the mandate doesn't have authority from that clause, it doesn't have it from anything else in the Constitution. So, again, it sounds like this is the court suggesting that this mandate is totally unconstitutional.
12. Jurisdiction is Under State Police Power
“[...]the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power.
Again, brining up that the Executive doesn't have this power. And likely not even the Federal Government.
13. Not for OSHA, yet
"[...] power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation,[...]the Mandate exceeds the bounds of OSHA’s statutory authority.”
I don't know why you added "yet." They are saying, again, OSHA doesn't have this authority.
14. We will wait for now
"[...]The judges ruled that the failure to grant the stay would cause irreparable harm to the petitioners, as well as affected companies and employees. It adds that the emergency stay is “in the public interest.”"
They were only ruling on an emergency stay, not the full case and arguments brought up.
15. Yuck. Note the qualitative "public interest" at the forefront
"The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials."
Weird. You seemed to say you were for the Constitution in your intro, but now you are disgusted with the idea of separation of powers? Just because the judge used a phrase you don't like? Maybe even one you don't understand in this context?
16. We need Congress
"Ultimately, the Court rebuked the mandate because such powers fall within the Legislative Branch, and not the Executive Branch."
Again, how is this not going directly to the Constitution? The court is (correctly) saying that Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to do what they are trying to do. If it resides anywhere in the Federal Government, clearly, it would be Congress. And the other points raised by the court suggest that even Congress might not have the authority to act.
17. No again to OSHA. Meh. OSHA was small fry to begin with.

Apologies for the long post breaking down Pina's link.

TLDR: Not for OSHA; let the States and/or Congress pass legislation. This leaves room in the future for other mandates. In other words, yup mandate whatever, just do it "right." See #12 and #16 bold.
Again, I question your understanding. If Congress passes a bill, it's not a "Mandate." And how could Congress pass any bill in this regard? The court said they don't have authority under the Commerce Clause to do so, which means that they would have no authority to pass a bill or law similar to the "mandate" in the first place.

I get that this isn't the final case, but the court exposed some fatal errors in the very concept of the "vaccine mandate." It doesn't appear these are "administrative errors" that could be "easily fixed." Nor could they be fixed with "legislation." If anything, it would likely have to be "fixed" with an Amendment to the Constitution.
 

Rym

New Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2021
Messages
4
Location
Buffalo, NY
Wut? Things aren't this simple.

What kind of bizzaro logic is this? The courts act in regards to what is presented to them. They aren't saying anything about the mandate is constitutional by listing many key constitutional violations.

Lol, I like you think the Executive Branch trying to usurp power expressly delegated to the Legislative is just an "administrative error."

Well, this makes sense. If OSHA is going to protect against some "danger," they should prove that the danger actually exists.

Same as point 1. This is talking about the limits of OSHA's powers.

Again, same as point 1.

This isn't so much a "we need moooooar" argument, but consistency. If OSHA declares that, say, benzene gas is a dangerous toxin, and that protective clothes and masks need to be worn when working with it, it would be ridiculous to only mandate the clothes and masks for companies of 100 or more. If there is a company of 40 people, can the employer just spray benzene gas in their employees faces, or let/make them work without gas masks and protective clothes? Why would some employees be put at risk, and maybe even their life threatened, just because their company only employees a few dozen people?

Again, saying that neither Biden nor OSHA have this authority. Again goes to Consitutional limits.

This strikes to the heart of an "Emergency." Basically, tantamount to a mayor or governor trying to enact riot act protections a year after a riot happened, and finished.

Hmmm. Again, it sounds like they are saying that the mandate itself is unconstitutional.

Obviously, the Commerce Clause is key, as if the mandate doesn't have authority from that clause, it doesn't have it from anything else in the Constitution. So, again, it sounds like this is the court suggesting that this mandate is totally unconstitutional.

Again, brining up that the Executive doesn't have this power. And likely not even the Federal Government.

I don't know why you added "yet." They are saying, again, OSHA doesn't have this authority.

They were only ruling on an emergency stay, not the full case and arguments brought up.

Weird. You seemed to say you were for the Constitution in your intro, but now you are disgusted with the idea of separation of powers? Just because the judge used a phrase you don't like? Maybe even one you don't understand in this context?

Again, how is this not going directly to the Constitution? The court is (correctly) saying that Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to do what they are trying to do. If it resides anywhere in the Federal Government, clearly, it would be Congress. And the other points raised by the court suggest that even Congress might not have the authority to act.

Again, I question your understanding. If Congress passes a bill, it's not a "Mandate." And how could Congress pass any bill in this regard? The court said they don't have authority under the Commerce Clause to do so, which means that they would have no authority to pass a bill or law similar to the "mandate" in the first place.

I get that this isn't the final case, but the court exposed some fatal errors in the very concept of the "vaccine mandate." It doesn't appear these are "administrative errors" that could be "easily fixed." Nor could they be fixed with "legislation." If anything, it would likely have to be "fixed" with an Amendment to the Constitution.

I do admit to making two critical mistakes that nullify the usefulness of my post.

1. I ignored the context of the ruling being to grant a stay. The ruling was never intended to establish constitutionality.

2. I did not read the brief, but relied on the summary provided in the link. My impression was unreasonably cynical and my points were taken too far out of context. I read it, and found the ruling to be clear and even-handed. I generally do not care for the verbosity and jargon of legal proceedings, however, I can appreciate the judges' need to address every point provided.


That being said, when I referred to administrative errors, I was looking for things that did not apply to the constitution. Things like:
  • 1. OSHA must show Covid exists in all workplaces, 6. OSHA must show Covid is a danger, 7. OSHA must show Covid exists in all workplaces. Covid is one small fish in an ocean of infectious diseases. In the future it is not inconceivable some disease, even if not Covid, could satisfy these requirements and an agency could exist to fulfill them.
  • The agency, OSHA, is not set up to tackle such a task, going for points 7, 9, 10, 13, and 17. Perhaps we need a bigger and better health agency set up by congress for the task.
  • 14 and 17 refer to the "public interest." While the mandate might not be in the "public interest" today, it might be in the future if things get worse or for a different disease.​
Many of these reasons might not apply in the future when a different mandate is considered for the "public's health and safety." Obviously in context this is for a stay, not constitutionality, but there is no reason to take the ruling "optimistically" or as a "win" either and that is my point.


My bizzaro logic is to not take rulings on things that are not in the constitution as viable reasons for unconstitutionality. I don't care about OSHA. I don't care of if it falls under Legislative or Executive Branch. I don't care what Biden et all said. The only topic that pertains to constitutionality, and thus the only one that is relevant, is if mandatory vaccination falls under the commerce clause. The court only said, "It was not—and likely could not be, under the Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine [...]". Again it was for a stay; they were not ruling on constitutionality. I get it. That means it is still far from settled as far as the courts are concerned.

It bothers me that this is okay. Whether or not some court deems it constitutional or not is irrelevant. How is it okay for some bureaucrat to decide on medical treatment for anybody? The court was deciding this seriously, presuming it knew the "public interest." Why is this even in court to begin with? The only thing the government exists for is to find a reason for its existence. I suppose that goes for many people as well...

And the commerce clause? Really? I suppose we are all "human resources."
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
6,775
That being said, when I referred to administrative errors, I was looking for things that did not apply to the constitution. Things like:
Not sure what you mean by "things that did not apply to the Constitution" here.
  • 1. OSHA must show Covid exists in all workplaces, 6. OSHA must show Covid is a danger, 7. OSHA must show Covid exists in all workplaces. Covid is one small fish in an ocean of infectious diseases. In the future it is not inconceivable some disease, even if not Covid, could satisfy these requirements and an agency could exist to fulfill them.
Well, if regulatory agencies are allowed to exist under the Constitution, they should have some limited scope or reason for what they are doing. Like, OSHA shouldn't grant broadcast licenses, and the FCC shouldn't issue general workplace and safety rules.
  • The agency, OSHA, is not set up to tackle such a task, going for points 7, 9, 10, 13, and 17. Perhaps we need a bigger and better health agency set up by congress for the task.
First off, OSHA isn't a health agency. It's a workplace safety agency. Point 7, for example, wouldn't matter so much for ANY agency, as the court was basically saying rules should be uniform. So IF Covid is a threat, and IF Covid is specifically a workplace threat, why would this rule/law/mandate ONLY apply to companies with 100 or more employees? It's silly. Like a rule that tries to address falling debris on a construction site, and states that, since it's a danger, hardhats must be worn by any construction worker who is employed by a company with 100 plus employees. Soooooo..... a company with 60 employees doesn't need any of them to wear hardhats because there is no danger for them? It doesn't make any sense.

I don't think this was suggesting that Congress needs to make any sort of "bigger and better" agency in this regard, even though it is an Article 1 court issuing this stay. Congress hasn't attempted to pass any sort of Mandatory Vaccine bill, this is all coming from the Executive.
  • 14 and 17 refer to the "public interest." While the mandate might not be in the "public interest" today, it might be in the future if things get worse or for a different disease.​
Speculation. The points they cite are in reference to principles of law, the points brought up aren't principles at all.
Many of these reasons might not apply in the future when a different mandate is considered for the "public's health and safety." Obviously in context this is for a stay, not constitutionality, but there is no reason to take the ruling "optimistically" or as a "win" either and that is my point.
Well, I disagree with this. The stay was based on the basic principle that the Executive overstepped it's authority. All the points brought up were detailing ways the Executive did this.
My bizzaro logic is to not take rulings on things that are not in the constitution as viable reasons for unconstitutionality.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
I don't care about OSHA. I don't care of if it falls under Legislative or Executive Branch. I don't care what Biden et all said. The only topic that pertains to constitutionality, and thus the only one that is relevant, is if mandatory vaccination falls under the commerce clause.
I think you should care about those things, because one of the primes issue in this case is Separation of Powers. This was one of, if not the, most important principles in drafting the Constitution. Biden is clearly overstepping any Executive delegation here, and looks like he could be encroaching on the powers of congress, the states, and the people themselves.

And obviously "Mandatory Vaccination" wouldn't fall under the Commerce Clause. But, requiring employees to be vaccinated could be. It's a free country, so the Federal Government can't "make" you take a vaccination (or drug), but it might be possible for it to be a "condition of employment." I'm not saying I agree with this argument, or that it would even work (the court doesn't seem to think it will), but I see how that's the argument being made.
It bothers me that this is okay.
That what's okay?
Whether or not some court deems it constitutional or not is irrelevant.
???
How is it okay for some bureaucrat to decide on medical treatment for anybody?
Technically, they don't. And even on this issue, they aren't. You still very clearly have to give your consent. It may be done under pressure, but it's still consent, at least in the eyes of the law.
The court was deciding this seriously, presuming it knew the "public interest."
I would assume the court does know. But your definition might be different than the court's definition.

Black's Law 6th Edition defines "Public Interest" as-

Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the ll1atters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national government.
Using that definition, and reading the quote again, I don't see what you are averse to here.
Why is this even in court to begin with?
Because there is a tyrant in the White House (well, supposedly at least), and we are getting to see first hand how Separation of Powers helps to limit that tyranny in our own country.
The only thing the government exists for is to find a reason for its existence.
Not true. They were originally created to protect your freedoms, protect your property and protect your borders, and that's it. Of course, they have branched out quite a bit since the late 1700s. And they seem to have neglected their original duties quite a bit, too.
And the commerce clause? Really? I suppose we are all "human resources."
The Commerce Clause has been the source of more litigation than any other clause in the Constitution. So, yes, kinda true. I've been watching more of Yusef El's videos, and he is always talking about how "It's all Commercial." Even things like murder have become commercial charges, because they'll claim "the victim was a taxpayer."
 

ecstatichamster

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
9,153
Huge news: Austrian police and army are going to participate in huge demonstrations on 20 November -- AGAINST the government house arrests of the brave unvaxxed.


translated through G translate:

Austria rises against "health dictatorship"​

November 16, 2021- 15:33 by Emilien Lacombe
The police and the army refuse to control the health pass in the name of "freedom and human dignity". They will join a large demonstration against compulsory confinement on November 20, 2021 in Vienna.
Autriche-manif-contgre-le-confinement-capture-R.T.-2.jpg
Austria protest against containment (RT capture)
Only a few days after Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg decided to confine unvaccinated people, politicians and unions, call for a vast uprising against this freedom-killing measure, unique in the world.
The leader of the Freedom Party (FPÖ) Herbert Kickl, called for a " mega-demonstration" on November 20 in Vienna.
Shortly thereafter, Austrian Armed Forces Union (FGÖ) President Manfred Haidinger followed suit and joined in in a letter published on 14 November. He intends to "defend fundamental rights and freedoms". The FGÖ specifies that "everyone" is authorized to demonstrate, even in the event of confinement!
The obligation of control imposed by the Minister of the Interior, Karl Nehammer has already been rejected by the police union. In addition, the Union of Austrian Armed Forces announces that they will participate in this great gathering in Vienna.
 

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
3,408
Location
USA
I highly recommend the video I posted above called, "Monopoly, Who Owns the World?".

From the write-up:
A documentary by Tim Gielen 2021. This brilliant documentary by Tim Gielen reveals how a small group of super rich criminals have been buying virtually everything on earth, until they own it all. From media, health care, travel, food industry, governments...

That allows them to control the whole world. Because of this they are trying to impose the New World Order. Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, ..."

It's beautifully done, dramatic and entertaining and ends with optimism.
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
Vileplume Sometimes, Is It Just A Matter Of Time? Metabolism 9
haidut (Sometimes) To Do Nothing As Cancer Treatment Is Also Good Medicine Scientific Studies 5
haidut (Sometimes) To Do Nothing As Cancer Treatment Is Also Good Medicine Scientific Studies 6
biggirlkisss Tired Need To Lie Down Sometimes After Eatting Ask For Help or Advice 2
biggirlkisss Nauseous Sometimes After Eatting Ask For Help or Advice 9
Mito Sometimes Sugar Is Better Than Starch Diet, Recipes 75
D Urge To Take A Deep Breath/inhalation Sometimes Altitude, Bag Breathing, CO2, Light, Weather 6
ecstatichamster my urine smells sometimes, it didn't used to, is this good or bad? Diet 3
N Do Things Sometimes Get Worse Before They Get Better? Health 53
charlie "High estrogen does sometimes cause insatiable sexual...." Ray Peat Quotes 0
B Dr Peter McCullough - Winning the War against therapeutic nihilism - using trusted treatments Ask For Help or Advice 23
M Friend lost his smell and taste after covid. Did something really help for this in here ? Ask For Help or Advice 34
L New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19 an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 4
aliml Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as an Endothelial Disease: Insights From COVID-19 Articles & Scientific Studies 0
youngsinatra COVID-19 Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Vitamins 10
ecstatichamster New supposed Covid-19 variant Nu Omicron found 21-November 2021 only in vaccinated people in Botswana Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 17
aliml Is carbonic anhydrase inhibition useful as a complementary therapy of Covid-19 infection? Scientific Studies 5
N Prescribed Amitriptyline by Post COVID Clinic, thoughts? Supplements, Pharmaceutical Drugs 29
Grapelander What Does All-Cause Mortality Tell Us About The Covid Pandemic? Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 2
Drareg Botswana Covid variant New Vaccines 67
R Minerals and vitamins that act like blood thinning agents-hack ,,covid injections" Heart, Heart Rate, Blood Pressure 22
Braveheart A Theory As To Why COVID Cases Started Skyrocketing In Central Europe Last Month Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 31
haidut Experts: Japan's lack of COVID-19 pandemic due to the virus "mutating out of existence" Vaccines 38
M Tim Pool on him catching Covid Ask For Help or Advice 19
Kvothe Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 5
Lokzo Does serotonin deficiency lead to anosmia, ageusia, dysfunctional chemesthesis and increased severity of illness in COVID-19? Scientific Studies 23
Braveheart Scientists mystified, wary, as Africa avoids COVID disaster Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 11
Jam Horowitz: Are elites planning a COVID repeat ... with smallpox? Breaking News 21
Braveheart Covid Jab Is Far More Dangerous than Advertised. Dr. Peter McCullough Vaccines 0
Drareg FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year 2076 to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data Vaccines 13
R Non Covid vax for 4 year old protocol Vaccines 12
L Another B3 helps treat Covid study B3/Niacinamide 2
Braveheart Fauci, Gates Admit COVID Vaccines Don’t Work as Advertised Vaccines 12
Braveheart COVID-19-vaccines-Continuing-the-long-history-of-medical-experimentation-on-children Vaccines 0
ddjd 128 Research Studies confirm efficacy of natural immunity versus COVID-19 vaccine induced immunity: Documented, Linked, and Quoted Ask For Help or Advice 0
frannybananny Artemisia against Covid Articles & Scientific Studies 6
Braveheart Feds Pay Zero Claims For Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries/Deaths Vaccines 7
Braveheart CAUGHT: NBC's Outrageous Lies About Covid & Child Vaxx Vaccines 1
Drareg Michael P. Singer COVID/China Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 8
Sam321 Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines over time Breaking News 9
Pina Big Brother Watch Legal Challenge Welsh Covid Passport Vaccines 1
aliml The potential use of lactate blockers for the prevention of COVID-19 worst outcome, insights from exercise immunology Scientific Studies 1
Braveheart Technocensorship: Rutherford Institute Challenges Facebook's Censorship of COVID-19 Vaccine Critics Vaccines 0
J A very informative video about Covid-19 and treatment modalities Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 1
H Pfizer claiming to have an 89% effective covid antiviral Pharmaceutical Drugs 27
haidut Italy admits 97%+ of COVID-19 deaths were not *FROM* the virus Society 28
N Microclotting Causing Long COVID Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 85
P Nature article, COVID and A1c Blood Sugar 6
JudiBlueHen VAXART - the next COVID vaccine Supplements, Pharmaceutical Drugs 16
Jam "A Tonic Water a Day Keeps The COVID-19 Away" Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 16

Similar threads

Top