“No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because law makes them so.” Frederic Bastiat
Introduction
It seems that any system of laws based on principle is inherently fragile. It is in the nature of things that there is seldom unanimity on any legal topic and, given that laws are the primary method of ensuring that principles are adhered to, there is an obvious opportunity available to those who wish to unmake the system. It feels like an unfair contest; there can be a myriad of challenges to constitutional law and only one has to succeed to create a breach through which more judgements can flow. The odds of conservation seem prohibitive.
Here is what used to be true. Laws were crafted which reflected principle; in the Western world at least, we did not have to think too hard about the legitimacy of the law, because it was underpinned by a constitution, a Bill of Rights or equivalent thereof. There was an acceptance that new law would not run afoul of the principles espoused in those foundational documents. The legal framework of a nation state was, effectively, the tactical deployment of those principles.
As such, there was a nexus between legitimacy and legality. That's not to say that difficult debates haven't always occurred, because subjectivity can make its way even into questions of principle; these disagreements have often pitted conservatives against liberals and, in the USA, have reflected a divide between those who wish to adhere to the principles of the Constitution and those who would seek to make it a 'living document', an early example of the Leftist tendency to utilize language to disguise their intentions.
There is a considerable difference between applying constitutional principle to new challenges, on the one hand, and changing those principles entirely, on the other. Those on the Left frequently sought the latter whilst assuring all and sundry that they were campaigning for the former.
And somewhere along the way, the legitimacy of the law became diluted. Not just in times of tyranny, either. In the USA, this had arguably been an ongoing battle since the founding of the Republic. There was never a time when the principles that begat the Constitution were accepted unequivocally by all parties. Consequently, there were attempts to change the nature of it from the very beginning.
Retreating into arcane legal arguments so that judgement may be rendered on legitimacy is to play the game that the Establishment wants us to play; to implicitly accept that the other way to mediate claims about the legitimacy of a law is within the legal framework. The Constitutional is not a set of laws. It follows that the law (as it now is) should be used to unravel its intricacies is nonsense. It is a way of removing the debate from the people and into the hands of the 'experts', which is where the authorities wants every issue to be deposited.
At some point, the whole argument becomes irrelevant. One side argues that the particular law does not reflect the Constitution, the other side says that it does and the judiciary gets to decide on the merits of the arguments. The pretence is that this is an impartial process and that the outcome will automatically be a valid one. Life can be a little more complicated than that. If the decision goes the way of the plaintiff and the law is struck done, what does that say about the merit of the legal system to start with?
There are plenty of people who will defend the system, who will assert that a process and a judgement followed by as many as three appeals is robust. To which the obvious rejoinder would be, what about when the last appeal overturns the verdict? Robust wouldn't be the first word that springs to mind. Broken, partisan sound more authentic.
Why is it that there even needs to be a challenge to a law or a judgement that is illegitimate? For someone to go out of their way? To spend money with no expectation of a return on investment? How did the law get on the books in the first place? Do we gain confidence from the fact that the challenge was upheld? Does it mean that the system is working? Does it automatically mean that, when a challenge is dismissed, we can have confidence in the process? Because we already know that law isn't always legitimate.
We have a choice; either believe that the checks and balances of our legal system guarantee the proper outcome or, alternatively, acknowledge that incompetence and/or malfeasance are present and that they are sometimes corrected, but almost certainly not always. How are we to know which is which?
And of course, the frequency of successful appeals would play an important part in reaching any conclusion:
“The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, has had a particularly dismal record before the high court. In the seven Supreme Court terms completed since the fall of 2005, the 6th Circuit has been reversed 31 out of 38 times, for an 81.6 percent reversal rate, based on figures compiled by two Philadelphia lawyers. That leads all the federal circuits for that time period, with the 9th Circuit coming in as the second most reversed—100 out of 128 cases, or 78.1 percent.”(1)
That's quite a lot of mistakes. And Obama's administration lost 44 times (on a unanimous vote) before the Supreme Court, not counting more closely decided decisions and notwithstanding the fact that the court had a majority of liberals, who ought to have been sympathetic to his agenda. It seems that the law is more malleable that we may have thought.
To name but two examples with which to illuminate the method that has been applied to subvert and undermine America's founding principles. One example establishes a new standard in federal overreach, the other a rewriting of the most important principle of all, without the need for an Amendment, because the government gaslit the population into believing that none was required.
Throughout the 19th century there were repeated attempts to establish a permanent central bank, which would inevitably give rise to a Federal Income Tax and permanent national debt, because of the obligation to pay interest on the principal. This, despite the fact that the Constitution forbad a federal tax on income. Eventually, on the back of crisis manufactured by a banker (J.P. Morgan), the bankers got their way and Americans have spent the past century convincing themselves that the relevant Amendment was lawfully enacted.
There were other deviations from the straight and narrow, especially in the New Deal era. While liberal commentators have fallen over themselves in praise of FDR, it is worth remembering that the current rot began on his watch:
“The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court.”(2)
However, the Civil Rights Act and accompanying Executive Orders, which enshrined positive discrimination (affirmative action) in law, ensured that for every person that benefits from discrimination, there will inevitably be others that suffer. On its face, you might think it difficult to argue that laws promoting the requirement that one person should be treated differently from another depending on his skin color is compatible with a Constitution that declared that 'all men are created equal'. But as long as the right people say that it is, apparently it is.
Taken together with the avalanche of case law and 'guidance' that has followed in the ensuing decades, the passage of this Act signaled that the ideological battle had been decided in favor of the Left. A great irony of this legislation is that it is lauded as a landmark victory for human rights and a return to the Constitutional principle of equality. However, when combined with EO11240, it can be seen that, far from ensuring equality of opportunity – which is the Constitutional principle – it mandated equality of outcome, which is diametrically opposed. So, once again, there was a schism between mere law and law which had legitimacy.
Lie of the land
CDC overreach
A recent example serves to illustrate the principle. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) director extended a moratorium on evictions, which prevented landlords from evicting tenants who had fallen behind on their rent during the pandemic. As an aside, why that would be necessary is a mystery given the vast sums of public money thrown at huge swathes of the population; but, nonetheless, she did. She knew, as did everybody else, that she lacked the authority to do so, that it had to be authorised by Congress, as previously.
But she did it, anyway, and Biden supported this blatantly illegal action, stating that it would remain in place until the courts overturned it. And, sadly but unsurprisingly, it was treated as a legitimate order in the interim, even though everyone knew it wasn't. Even less surprisingly, the three liberal judges on the Supreme Court disagreed with the decision to reverse the order forgetting, once more, that their duty is to uphold the Constitution, not change it.(3)
The net result of this saga is that an obviously illegitimate instruction was issued by an organ of the executive branch of the state (which is only authorised to execute laws passed by Congress), endorsed rather than repudiated by the President and had the force of law for getting on for a month before being struck down. And the reason it was rescinded? Once more, a group of those who were wronged had to do the spadework themselves. There was no other corrective.
We have arrived at a very dangerous place if the administration of the world's superpower can openly flout its Constitution, admit that it is doing so and then get away with it until challenged in the courts. The state imposed an illegitimate 'law' on the people, knowingly, and it was obeyed. They subverted Congress, got away with it and nobody had to fall on their sword for a textbook example of malfeasance.
And why did the landlords feel compelled to accept the 'law' and appeal it, rather than reject it from the start? Presumably, because they still felt that they had to operate within a system which has been established, on the implicit assumption that the government would act in good faith. The separation of powers between legislative and executive is part of that system of checks and balances. But when something similar happens the next time, which it will, it seems that it will have to be us that do something about it.
Politicians clearly lack the will to act; they operate within the rules of the game, rules that they accept. These rules specify that, as long as the pandemic holds sway and a grotesque distortion of the Precautionary Principle is allowed to govern every policy, anything can be justified, legitimate or not and nobody has the courage to say different for fear of being doxxed and vilified for a lack of compassion and so forth.
Florida mask mandates
It may be useful to use the state of Florida as a proxy to illustrate the problems at hand. The State has been the leading Republican state battling federal overreach, albeit still within limits. A truly conservative state would have banned the 'vaccines' entirely, given the long standing and compelling evidence that they are dangerous to every age group and also completely ineffective in both the short and medium term. Nonetheless, three recent episodes demonstrate the way the law is being abused and provide an indication as to the likely success or otherwise of any future legal remedies to the top down control that is being attempted.
As we know, wherever we may be, governments have been very keen to impose mandates upon us, mask mandates being one such. In Florida, Governor DeSantis issued an Executive Order; a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, stated that the state did not have legal authority. The EO had given parents the sole right to decide whether to mask their children when they attended school.
It's extremely difficult to see how that could be unconstitutional and yet other demands aren't. It seems as though locking down states, with all the draconian measures that came with that, is constitutional, but this isn't? How can giving back a measure of freedom of choice be wrong, but taking them away is right? The Governor had said that if school boards ignored this order and continued to defy the law, he would withhold salaries of school board members. The Department of Education, a federal entity, stepped in and said, not to worry, we'll use tax dollars to make up the difference.
So, we have the spectacle of a governor issuing an EO which has the force of law, school boards openly defying the law, the federal government circumventing the Constitution by intervening prior to any legal action being decided and then, to top it off, a federal judge ruling the EO unconstitutional. A hot mess, in the eyes of anyone but diehard liberals.
Florida vaccine mandates
The governor issued another EO forbidding any cruise line from mandating vaccine passports and still attempting to use Florida ports. This presented them with a major problem, as they perceived it, as they wanted their cruises to be fully 'vaccinated' and Florida residents make up a majority of their passenger manifests. Naturally, attempting to stop a private company from discriminating against a sizeable proportion of the population was not acceptable and Norwegian Cruise Lines led the charge against government tyranny. A federal judge (another federal judge, rather than a state one) has issued a temporary injunction, preventing the imposition of the mandate, on the grounds that:
“The statute is a content-based restriction because it singles out documentation regarding a particular subset matter … and subjects it to restrictions … that do not apply to documents regarding other topics.”(4)
The judge went on to comment on the delta variant which, in his view, represented a clear and present danger. Call me old fashioned, but the legislation was targeted at a subset precisely because the cruise line was taking aim at that same subset. Further, the judge was there to rule on the constitutionality of the law, not give his opinion on the delta variant; that comment, whilst irrelevant to the matter at hand, is nonetheless instructive, as it reveals someone who is using something other than legal precedent to inform his judgement. So, the new standard is that a private company can discriminate in this fashion, but the government has no right to stop it, because it will apparently run afoul of the the First Amendment, which says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”(5)
I'm no constitutional expert, but I don't see anything in that wording which would be relevant to Norwegian Cruise Lines and their vaccine passport mandate. The only part of it that is vaguely linked is the reference to the right to peaceably assemble, but it's a stretch. And the First Amendment is not only non-applicable to private companies, it is non-applicable to State law also. If that's not enough, the Constitution specifically says that all the powers not assigned to the federal government are reserved to the States and the people.
Only Congress is mentioned in the First Amendment and we know that James Madison wrote another amendment specifically concerning any potential State level abuse of fundamental rights, but this amendment was never incorporated into the Constitution.Ergo, the Constitution is definitely only referring to federal activity, as the framers of it were aware of the distinction between State and federal power and chose to limit only the federal.(6)
Therefore, the grounds for the injunction don't seem to make any sense. The grounds for the original vaccine mandate by the cruise line, revealed in their statement welcoming the judgement, are even more nonsensical:
“This order will now allow the Company to operate in the safest way possible with 100% vaccination of all guests and crew when sailing from Florida ports. Nothing takes priority over the health and safety of the Company’s guests, crew and the communities visited and our commitment to them is paramount.” (7)
It's nonsense because 100% vaccination is a guarantee of nothing, even (or especially) in captive audiences. We know this because, in July, a Royal Navy warship reported 100 cases of Covid on a fully vaccinated vessel, which had been at sea for weeks.(8) We know this because, despite being 95% fully vaccinated, the cruise ship Vanity Fair had a Covid outbreak.(9)
We know this because of data from Israel, the so called petri dish for the Pfizer vaccine, as that jab is the only one used in the country. They have recently published data detailing vaccine efficacy, data which shows the continuation of a trend apparent in Pfizer's own incomplete clinical trials. This data reveals that, while efficacy was allegedly 95% at the outset of the vaccination programme, it was down to 64% by early July and 39% by end July.(10)
Bear in mind that the FDA requires vaccine effectiveness of around 50%, if it is to meet one of the criteria for approval. And take note of the fact that this data shows that 61% of the 'vaccinated' aren't actually vaccinated, any more. And whilst the rugged individualists who comprised the 5% who were unvaccinated on the Vanity Fair would have needed a negative test before stepping aboard, the 61% would have needed no such dispensation.(11) It's not difficult to see who was more of a transmission risk in reality.
And it's not just the science journals warning of vaccine failure; the CDC is getting in on the act too, albeit their motivation is primarily to market a third shot on the one hand and downplay vaccine failure on the other. But even their gerrymandered data purports to show only 75% vaccine effectiveness.(12)
Florida Big Tech
Once more, Florida was in the vanguard, with a law protecting free speech on this occasion; the law would allow Florida residents to sue Big Tech over their content moderation policies (otherwise known as censorship). Once more, an appeal against the law landed in federal court and a temporary injunction was the seemingly inevitable result. Two trade associations argued that the law would require social media sites to host speech that they otherwise would not and that it therefore interfered with their editorial judgement. The judge noted that:
“Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate government interest.”(13)
That is not a difficult sentiment to agree with. The problem is that we know that is exactly what is happening already, as I have previously detailed (Descent into delusion) and which the government have previously admitted, when the White House Press Secretary said that the administration notifies social media companies of content that they believe to be misinformation and 'encourages' them to remove it. If that isn't 'balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers', I don't know what is.(14)
However, as per the other Floridian federal judgements, the trick is to pretend that the whole imbroglio starts one stage further on than the reality. If a judge pretends that the federal government, in collusion with Big Tech, is not already involved in censoring speech, then he can claim the moral high ground and condemn a law that attempts to reverse that dynamic, but which could, ironically, be presented as government overreach instead. This despite the fact that, once again, the First Amendment refers to the federal government, not State. The Leftist capacity for doublespeak should not be underestimated.
In this way, if judges can't avoid hearing the cases entirely by claiming that the plaintiff lacks standing (doesn't have the legal right to bring the case), then the other favored tactic seems to be to ignore the original offence and rule on the retaliation.(15)
It's notable that the state of Florida is attempting to undo what the federal government has helped propagate, either explicitly with CDC 'guidance' or secretly through behind the scenes collusion with Big Tech. The courts' is to note that one layer of government (state) has no business trying to prevent the continuation of private sector discrimination, which has been arrived at with the assistance of another level of government (federal).
Supreme Court abrogation of duty
A recent Supreme Court judgement – South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom – has the potential to be the definitive word on the legality of pandemic measures and to enshrine the undermining of fundamental rights. It's an absolute shocker, not much remarked upon as of yet. The case was in response to California's draconian Covid 19 mandates. In his judgement, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the following:
“The precise question of whether restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during a pandemic is a dynamic and fact intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts the 'safety and health of the people' to politically accountable officials of the state to 'guard and protect.' (citing Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905)(16)
Leaving aside the fact that the cited case has been overturned on numerous occasions (not least when it was cited as a source justifying eugenics), no attempt has been made to examine whether the measures imposed actually had a beneficial effect or whether there is any real science behind any of it. And whilst the Chief Justice may want us to believe that it is the politically appointed officials at the Department of Health who are making these decisions, it is widely known that it is entities such as the NIH and CDC who are calling the shots and there isn't one elected official among them.
Additionally, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to question and second guess the officials. That's what happens when you review a decision. Instead, the message is that the courts should not intervene in a pandemic – unelected officials get to decide what we can and cannot do and the Constitution is suspended. So, in one fell swoop, the Supreme Court has washed its hands of its primary duty, which is to defend the Constitution.
As a result, there will be no recourse to the law to protest any mandate that is in place now or which is coming down the pipe; the Florida injunctions have been given posthumous legal authority. As long as there's a pandemic – and who gets to define that? - the government can do pretty much what it wants. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed 'expert' opinion to be enshrined in law and has rubber stamped any measure, no matter how ineffective. It matters not how many basic rights are infringed or just ignored entirely; as long as the government says there's still a pandemic, it's all lawful.
Fighting back
There are still some brave souls who are attempting to hold governments to account. Prominent among then is a German attorney, Reiner Fuellmich, a lawyer previously involved in successful lawsuits against Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank for fraud and money laundering, respectively. He is said to be filing suit against the WHO and the CDC at the Hague, citing numerous breaches of the Nuremberg Code.(17)
In the USA, two soldiers have filed suit against the Department of Defense and the FDA. They allege that the vaccine mandate is contrary to military regulations and that those that can prove previous Covid infection (and, therefore, natural immunity) are exempted.(18) Indeed, the regulations state:
“General examples of medical exemptions include the following … Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection or similar circumstances.”(19)
Straightforward enough, you would think. And yet the military is mandating vaccines and pretending the regulations don't exist, as per the state's customary Plan B. One would hope that, now that they have been called on it, they would back out gracefully. Time will tell, but given that they acted unlawfully to begin with, hoping for a change in attitude now may be over-optimistic.
Additionally, America's Front Line Doctors filed suit in July 2021, asking for an immediate injunction to rescind the Emergency Use Authorisation for all the 'vaccines' on the grounds of safety and efficacy; the type of relief that federal judges in Florida are so keen on.(20) The success of that venture can be gauged from the fact that, five weeks later, the FDA extended the EUA on Pfizer's 'vaccine'.
None of these legal challenges nor the myriad of others that have been attempted in the past eighteen months has done anything to stem the erosion of our fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The system is clearly not fit for purpose, not able, in the short term at least, to defend the people against a government that is willing to ignore the Constitution. The presumption has always been that an administration would act in good faith and that, consequently, egregious examples such as this would not be a realistic outcome. But if the government has a higher regard for its own moral conscience than it does for the principles that undergird the law, all bets are off.
We don't have to look far if we wish to see what an illegitimate law looks like. Indeed, our cousins down under have been enthusiastically undermining rights and freedoms in Australia since the 'pandemic' took hold, despite the fact that their death rate is so negligible as to rank them in 170th place, worldwide.(21) Their latest contribution has been to pass the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill; among other things, this allows the state to:
(a) modify, delete, copy or edit online data as they see fit
(b) monitor web activity or networks
(c) take control of an online account.
Naturally, this is only to be used for valid reasons, namely to prevent the:
“continuation of criminal activity by participants, and be the safest and most expedient option where those participants are in unknown locations or acting under anonymous or false identities.”(21)
Predictably, the level of criminal activity required in order to make use of these powers isn't specified. This from a country which is building Green Camps for those who don't play by the mandated rules. Whilst this Act will become law, its scope and intent are illegitimate, insofar as they trample all over the right to free speech without demonstrating any justification for doing so. Not only that, but government application of proportionality and necessity is to be taken on trust, not properly enshrined in the law.
And in a further example of how the law is becoming increasingly irrelevant, look at how booster shots are being handled. The US administration has announced that the general public will be eligible to receive them from 20th September this year, despite the fact that the FDA haven't approved them yet.(23) Once again, we must remember that the CDC is supposed to be issuing guidance, not mandates and definitely not 'vaccine' approvals. But, not content with railroading the FDA into approving the BioNTech 'vaccine' four months after it was requested, the state is now seemingly bypassing its own regulatory body completely.
There is obviously no immediate remedy if a government decides to act in a tyrannical manner, but any legal system that allows a 'law' that is clearly not a law to stand for any period of time is not up to scratch. And yet, the passions of the political class have not been particularly inflamed. It seems that the only group of people who can see a precedent being set before their very eyes is the general population.
In the same way that Western religious values have been repudiated, without any adequate set of beliefs on hand to replace them, so it is with the law. Initially at least, there was a valid relationship between principle and the law, with one being the legitimate offspring of the other, but what is supposed to happen when a bastard child appears? Unfortunately, we are living through an era that is in the process of providing us with an answer.
Once one principle is undone, particularly that of equality of opportunity, the whole edifice starts to crumble. When it is compounded by federal overreach, the state is provided with the means to impose laws that are illegitimate. If the USA wishes to maintain the fiction that the Constitution is the theoretical rock upon which their legal system is constructed, any number of laws and, more insidiously, regulations are unconstitutional.
The law is not holy writ, interpreted by wholly impartial judges bent on maintaining the ordinary citizens rights and privileges, at any cost. It is an instrument that can be wielded in the service of good or ill. It is vulnerable to political influence and it is administered by a class of people who do not have the same fundamental outlook as the majority of the people they serve. There is absolutely no guarantee that the correct judgement will ever be arrived at, no matter how many levels of appeal are available.
And the appeal process itself is problematic. There may well be a tendency to avoid making hard decisions in the first place and leaving the hot potato in the lap of the appellate court. Once there, there may be a reluctance to overrule a lower court, whether by reason of conflict avoidance, personal relationship or any other non legal motivation.
When ordinary people become aware of the fallibility of the legal system to which they are obliged to submit, confidence can be fatally undermined. If there is no redress in law, there are only two remaining options. Either take one for the team and do nothing or provide your own solution. The outcome could easily be a subservient but resentful class on the one hand or a return of frontier justice on the other. Neither is sustainable.
Despite all of the above and the fact that legal system isn't yet in total collapse, there are those who seek to use the law to preserve our basic rights. Results are patchy, particularly as they relate to mandates and the reach of emergency powers. If you're a judge and the government has indicated its position on matters and the government is also the final arbiter in any decision relating to your future career, it's not unreasonable to suggest that an element of bias may sometimes be in play.
One of the manifest weaknesses of the law is that matters which are blindingly obvious still have to be fought for in a court, with the outcome uncertain. Such is the case with the Fuellmich class action suit. It is perfectly apparent to anyone who cares to read the Nuremberg Code or the Helsinki Declaration or any other law that incorporates these principles, that informed consent cannot be given if relevant information is withheld. That should never have been a matter in dispute.
The reason that it is a point of contention is because our legal system allows illegalities to persist unless challenged. It is not robust enough to prevent these illegitimate laws being enacted in the first instance. The law has a phrase for this – legal redress. But if the state is ruthless enough to disregard the law, it gets away with it until it is stopped.
It should be remembered that the law and the legal system, in general, has never been a guarantor of fairness and liberty. Prior to the events addressed in this article, states all across the Western world had illegally changed the definition of mRNA experimental gene therapies to 'vaccines', so that they might conduct the biggest clinical trial in human history with drugs of unproven efficacy and safety.
In fact, at the time, the available evidence about mRNA vaccines was unfavorable – Moderna, a company solely engaged in this type of research, had failed to bring a drug to market in around eight years of trying – and it was well known that coronavirus vaccines were dangerous; all previous attempts to produce one had resulted in severe adverse events in the animals in the clinical trials. So, the law didn't help us much there, because it actually has to be enforced to have any effect and if it is the state that is breaking the law and they are also the means of ensuring it is obeyed, that isn't going to happen.
All the considerable legal architecture assembled to protect our right to informed consent has done nothing to ensure that we are accorded that right in actuality. The risks associated with the 'vaccines' are still not being acknowledged, ingredients are still not being listed and mandates were already in place across the public and private spheres long before the alleged FDA approval of the Pfizer 'vaccine,' So, the law didn't help us there, either.
What about our First Amendment right to free speech, enshrined in every constitution or Bill of Rights in the Western world? What happens to those who beg to differ, who disagree with the threadbare narrative being foisted upon us? So far, the response has been the usual mix of ad hominem attacks and de-platforming of one side of the debate, with no action taken against the other. But the law won't help us there either, because it's 'private' companies doing the censoring.
And as the people being vilified for daring to have a different opinion, one backed by evidence rather than ideology, are also likely to be numbered among the sizeable minority who have declined the jab and the unvaxxed are clearly in the cross-hairs, we can expect more punitive measure in the not too distant future – I would imagine the Green Camps which are currently being knocked together in the USA, Australia and elsewhere will prove to be their mandatory vacation location. The law won't help there, either.
There has been a deliberate policy of vagueness and exaggeration. Vagueness about the precise nature of what governments are able to mandate and still stay within the law and exaggeration of the threat level, the better to intimidate into silence those who wish to hold the government to account. This has been remarkably effective.
It's not just the USA; the use of illegitimate laws and powers has been widespread elsewhere also, especially in the UK where there is no legal validity to Covid legislation, except there is because Parliament passed it anyway. Neither has there been a legal basis for the interminable extensions to governmental emergency powers (achieved by falsely exaggerating the threat), which are still in place nearly eighteen months later. The legal system proved itself incapable of withstanding the panic mode engaged by the government.
Whilst Reiner Fuellmich has an enviable record and his cause is just, I wouldn't invest too much hope in the outcome. The law is not our shield; it has not defended our rights thusfar and relying on it to do so in the future is foolhardy and distracts from the only real solution to the problems that face us. We, the people, are the only ones that can prevent a bad outcome. Resistance will have to come from us. That realisation is starting to dawn on some people but, as is usual in these matters, it will likely be too late. I suspect that enough people will continue to believe that there is a way to avoid the coming tyranny which does not involve direct action. I hope I'm wrong.
Citations
Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, pg 18.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/9/judge-halts-floridas-ban-covid-19-vaccine-passport/
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/wording-and-application-of-the-first-amendment
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/wording-and-application-of-the-first-amendment
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/9/judge-halts-floridas-ban-covid-19-vaccine-passport/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/florida-gov-desantis-big-tech-law-struck-down-by-judge
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/masked-ball-cowardice
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/colorado-army-lawsuit-vaccine.pdf
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/08/identify-and-disrupt-bill-australia-passed/
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/31/two-senior-fda-vaccine-regulators-are-stepping-down.html