Can They Give Me a Jab If I Say No?
by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Today is Easter Sunday, 2020. The corona virus scare has been on our minds for about a month. I am not so much scared of getting sick, but dreading the Takeover. It’s pretty clear that if this happens we will lose the Rule of Law.
I recall reading the Homeland Security Act when it was passed, in 2002, by a cowered Congress. (You want to pronounce that as “coward Congress”? Go right ahead.) I was furious that the section on mandatory vaccination was disguised. The word vaccination did not even appear – vax was called a “countermeasure.” Get it? It counteracts the offending disease, or bioweapon, or whatever.
By two years later, President George W Bush – in the Rose Garden, no less – presented the Project Bioshield Act. Don’t think for a minute that I blame “W.” I blame the cowered Congress. Any such legislation begins with them. Ah, I hear you say, it really begins in the lab of Dr Strangelove or whatever. Even so, even so. Congress is the author of our laws.
Upon signing the dastardly thing, the President opined (I mean his speechwriter opined): "We refuse to remain idle when modern technology might be turned against us. We will rally the great promise of American science and innovation to confront the greatest danger of our time." [He meant anthrax that particular week.]
I hope to do some rallying around “to confront the greatest danger of our time” – see below. For now, I quote from page192 of my 2013 masterpiece (sorry, but it is a masterpiece), "Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status":
Retrieved from Whitehouse.gov:
President George W. Bush signs S.15-Project Bioshield Act of 2004, in the Rose Garden Wednesday, July 21, 2004.... [The new law] provides new tools to improve medical counter-measures protecting Americans ....
The President first proposed Project BioShield in his 2003 State of the Union address and Congress approved it last week. Project BioShield is a comprehensive effort overseen jointly by Secretary Thompson of Department of Health and Human services and Secretary Ridge of Homeland Security [Help! Mommy, Daddy, help!] ....
[It will] give FDA the ability to make promising treatments quickly available in emergency situations – this [relaxation of the rule that clinical trials precede use of a new drug] will enable access to the best available treatments in the event of a crisis.
[It will] ensure that resources are available to pay for “next-generation” medical countermeasures. [Help, Mommy! Daddy!] Project BioShield will allow the government to buy improved vaccines or drugs. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security included $5.6 billion over 10 years....
As the result of the Project BioShield legislation, the Administration has already begun the process of acquiring:
-- 75 million doses of a second-generation anthrax vaccine -- new medical treatments for anthrax ...
-- safer second-generation smallpox [not smallpox shots, just smallpox itself? What?].
Today, based on the new BioShield authorities, Secretary Thompson will launch multi-year initiatives to develop advanced treatments and therapeutics for exposure to biological agents and radiation poisoning. -- end of quote from 2004
So, they have jabs in abundance (even for anthrax – a shot that may possibly underlie some veterans’ illnesses) but that does not of itself legitimate forcing them on anyone. Does it?
(A side issue here. A group of soldiers sued, and won a lawsuit against Department of Defense for a particular injection, I forget which, but Secretary Donald Rumsfeld then reinstated it. ‘Mazing.)
The Tendency, the Instinct, To Obey in a Crisis
So far in the corona virus crisis, most people are cooperating. The number of gun sales is up, in Massachusetts, but I have not heard of any confrontation. We need to be ready to challenge overreach. We need to make everyone aware that it is human nature to become very obedient in a crisis. Sure that’s fine if it be a genuine crisis. If it’s a cooked-up crisis, the likelihood is that the whole point is to terrify people into obedience.
Of course, we can peek into the old quiver to see what arrows may be there by way of Anti-terrorist legislation. Heh, heh. But first, we are going to have a problem. Over the last 20 years we allowed Congress to hand powers “seemingly legally” to the Executive. These powers will be used against us. The thing to do, therefore, is get Congress to repeal the offending Acts. Failing that we may have to disobey on Constitutional grounds. (Licking my chops, I am.)
Before a true panic sets in, we should determine, loudly, that it would be wrong to let officials curtail our rights. Already here at Gumshoe, we have discussed such lost rights as the freedom to travel and freedom to associate. Now we are discussing the right to bodily integrity as against a forcible injection (or forcible pill-taking, but it will more likely be a shot, to include a chip). Basic fact – it is your right to have your body untouched by government. An injection is rape, or as near as dammit.
So when is it OK for our overlords to insist that we act for the greater good? There is nothing wrong with acting for the greater good. Leaders have a responsibility to coordinate the actions of a whole city, say, by stacking sandbags against an overflowing river. But that doesn’t mean each time a president says we must do such-and-such for the greater good, that it’s the right decision.
After 9-11, many things happened that were said to be necessary for the common good. One that stands out in my memory is the rounding up of Muslims. Non-Muslims found it in their hearts to look the other way as officials gave due process the heave-ho. After all, to fuss over this blatant discrimination and injustice would be disloyal to one’s neighbors who may have a lost a loved one in the Twin Towers type thing.
Similarly, and given that many citizens don’t know that some vaccinations are malicious, the tendency is to be hostile toward parents who don’t vax their kids, as it will somehow harm other children. Doctors, mainly at the behest of their employer or the state, “fire” the non-vaccinating patients. Citizens should gasp in horror, but they don’t. Anyway, doctors have automatic credibility and authority, don’t they?
Emergency Law Is a Tempter of Sin
In Australia, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller recently rolled himself out to tell people not to go on holiday for Easter. In Victoria, Dee McLachlan reported that Channel 10 colluded with the coppers to stage a Show Trial of bathers at St Kilda. (I’m kidding; it was a staged event, not a trial. That will come later.)
In 2019, the said Mick Fuller tried his luck at making Preemptive Arrests of Maxwell types at airports for being a threat to society. I went running to my lawyer in Adelaide, who was astounded that this was being done, or at least threatened, with no supporting legislation at all! Media mentioned a "Fixated Persons Act" but it did not exist.
It’s the legislation that does exist that worries me. As mentioned, there is the Rose Garden variety Bioshield law, to be run not by your local hospital but by Homeland Security. President Bush announced it 16 years ago, but it has become relevant only now. We did have the SARs scare and Ebola, but they did not “take off.”
This one is taking off. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, son of New York Governor Mario Cuomo (it’s confusing), holds Fireside Chats every day. Very folksy on how to survive the storm. The emotions are all in favor of obedience.
So here is the problem. The laws that “make it OK” to treat the people like idiots are already in place. But when they were being germinated, nothing was put in place to avert a dictatorial use of these laws. As noted, in the heyday of the Homeland Security Act, the very word “vaccination” was spoken in Swahili (“covered counter-measure”) so people would not notice.
We need to put the brakes on right now. It may help to have a slogan – remember “Better dead than red?” – to show the simplicity of the choice between buckling under and saying Nyet.
But Can They Jab Me?
I want to come to the answer of whether the authorities in the US can do what they want with my dear body. So first let’s identify the relevant authorities. As noted, President Bush pointed to the Secretaries of HHS and DHS. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the very existence of a federal Department of Health and Human Services is unconstitutional.
The Framers, writing in 1787, made a list of 18 areas in which the states were willing to cede power. (The Framers themselves were delegates from states, acting to protect their own state’s turf.) They drafted Article I, section 8 to specify those 18 ceded powers. If a function – such as health or housing -- is not listed there, Congress may not legislate on that subject. Period.
But what about Homeland Security? Over the decades Congress had responded to the excitement of this or that emergency (a storm, a fear of Commie invasion, etc) by passing a law that hand some power to the feds. In 1950 we got the Defense Production Act allowing the president to demand that a manufacturer manufacture some item need by the nation.
In 1974 we got the Disaster Relief Act, colloquially called the Stafford Act, to send federal funds to a state that requested it. No Congressman would dare to vote No, as venality predictably triumphs. In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which contained at least one blatantly unconstitutional item – a promise by the legislature not to question an executive decision for 6 months!
The biggie, however, was FEMA. So how did FEMA get legislated? It didn’t. President Jimmy Carter, no doubt under orders from Someone Somewhere, issued an executive order.
There’s no point sending the paddy wagon to get Carter for this, as the anthrax-smitten Congress did pass the Homeland Security Act in 2002, which gobbled up FEMA, so FEMA’s constitutionality (hence, legitimacy) is moot. As for the constitutionality of DHS, I just peeked at its website and noticed this statement about the 2017 Muslin ban:
June 26, 2017. “WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to largely implement the President's Executive Order and take rational and necessary steps to protect our nation from persons looking to enter and potentially do harm. [Who else? Muslims.] The granting of a partial stay of the circuit injunctions with regard to many aliens abroad restores to the Executive Branch crucial and long-held constitutional authority to defend our national borders.”
Well, that’s not related to jabs. Back in 1931, SCOTUS had helped keep the Republic a republic by saying, in the Home Building v Blaisdell case:
“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power [wow] …. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power…were not altered by emergency.”
Today we have states, and the president, advising people to shelter in place owing to the pandemic emergency. There are rumors that “advice” will soon turn into command. This is already seen in Australia (See GumshoeNews.com for the crime of visiting a beach.)
In Denmark, the government has made it mandatory for people to take the COVID vaccine, if one becomes available. According to TheLocal.DK:
“Denmark's parliament on Thursday night unanimously passed an emergency coronavirus law which gives health authorities powers to force testing, treatment and quarantine with the backing of the police. The far-reaching new law will remain in force until March 2021, when it will expire under a sunset clause.
"I was touched when I saw the whole Parliament standing up and voting for this," Health Minister Magnus Heunicke told Danish state broadcaster DR after the law passed.”
I was touched, too, but not in a pleasant way.
For now, the most I can arrive at, as an answer to my question “Can They Jab Me If I Say No?” (Please note: I am in New Hampshire, a hotbed of conservative constitutionalism) is No they can’t. The United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects my bodily integrity. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
Finally, I have to point out that my view on the legitimacy of a jab is related to my sense that all is not cricket in COVID land. I suspect the entire exercise of being a step toward total control. We never heard of the social-distancing routine until now. It seems remarkably clever, and an affront to the First Amendment’s right to assemble.
In 2011, I published “Prosecution for Treason.” I said on page 34 of that book:
“When Congress proposes a bill with the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘emergency’ in the title, we should immediately decode it, calling it The Act To Reduce Citizen Power – followed by the year of the act, to distinguish it from many others. Thus, the Patriot Act will be called The Act To Reduce Citizen Power, 2001; the National Emergencies Act will be called The Act to Reduce Citizen Power, 1976, and so forth.”
I stick by that.
Here is a reasonable sounding discussion of virus:
Please have a look at this GumshoeNews.com article about BBC censorship regarding 5G: